Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 19, and the Title, line 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Channon.—[Mr. Channon.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 14, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Ede."—[Mr. Ede.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.)

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "contribute" in line 15.
The Amendment raises the issue whether, in conferring upon local authorities the powers under the Bill, it should be necessary to place them further under the surveillance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. As one who was first elected to a local authority in 1908 and has had a close connection with local authorities of various standings since, I have always hoped to see the beginning of what all parties, in my recollection, have proclaimed, namely, that they wish to trust local authorities.
That is the sole issue raised by the Amendment. If, under the Bill, a local authority desires to do something to preserve a building which it regards as being of historic interest to the locality it should be allowed to do it. The ratepayers will see that it does not spend too much money on it. I want to see local authorities given an opportunity to show their good will in the matter.
I cannot think that there is so much spare time in the various Departments of the Ministry that the Minister is anxious to justify his establishment by arranging for petty things of this description to come in front of one of those Departments.
I believe in local government. I have often known it to be hampered through not having the power of initiative, and this seems to be to be one of those harmless sort of things concerning which those elected to local authorities might very well be allowed to do what they want to do without being under the surveillance of a Government Department.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I have sat on a local authority for a very much shorter time than the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I can only claim to have done so since 1955. I am bound to say that I take a different view from that taken by the right hon. Gentleman about this matter, not because I do not trust local authorities but because it seems to me that this is a Bill dealing specifically with the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest.
The list of historic buildings at my hon. Friend's Ministry is a very comprehensive one. Not every county has yet finalised its list, but from the lists already prepared it is clear that it will be the exceptional case where a building not on those lists is regarded as important. I suppose there is the possibility—this is an old hobby-horse of mine—that a Victorian building might be regarded by my hon. Friend's Ministry as one of importance. However, I suspect that the right test in all this is the list. Therefore, I think it right, prima facie—to use a phrase that has been much under discussion in Committee upstairs—that, unless there are really special reasons, the matter should be referred to the Minister in order to get the additional powers.
Personally, I am inclined to advise the Committee to resist the Amendment. I think that the words of the Bill as it stands are reasonable and give just that degree of restraint necessary. After all, the real purpose of the Bill and the desire of Parliament is to give help only for buildings of historic or architectural interest. It is necessary to see that it does not provide a general power to assist buildings of any sort.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am afraid that, on balance, I am against the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), although I think I see what he has in mind. There are, of course, buildings which are of particular local interest about which there might very well be a different attitude locally from what there is in Whitehall. I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields was a member of the Government who claimed that the gentleman in Whitehall knew best.

Mr. Ede: I did not say that.

Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman was silent on that occasion.
While sympathising with that point of view, I believe that the Amendment opens a rather wide door. The right hon. Gentleman wants to leave out all the words before "contribute", which means that the consent of the Minister goes out all together.
I am a little rusty concerning the lists under Section 30, but my belief is that there are three lists. Lists I and II have statutory effect and have been approved by the Minister. I believe that they include about 100,000 properties. There is also, I believe, a provisional list of about the same size which has not yet been approved by the Minister. I wonder whether, possibly, some sort of compromise could be arrived at if List III were to be included in the provisions of the Bill. Of course, I see the difficulty about that.
As I say, I am not entirely sure about these three lists, but I believe that, possibly, local authorities can add to List III if they wish. Certainly List III has not yet had the scrutiny and approval of the Ministry. Therefore, it may be that the suggestion which I am

making is not very much different from what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in his Amendment, but I think that there may be a difference. It is quite possible that there is and that List III, by adding another 100,000 properties, more or less, to the discretion of local authorities under the Bill, might be a way of meeting the points which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when putting down his Amendment.
11.15 a.m.
I believe that proper scrutiny is necessary because quite a lot of public money can be spent on these buildings. There is no other check on the local authorities under the Bill except the limitation of the properties in respect of which they can exercise their discretion. While we are all in favour of history and architectural merit, just as Hall Caine was against sin, it is, nevertheless, possible to slip into rather a generalised approach to the matter and to find that public money is running out like water in respect of, perhaps, a lot of unimportant relics from the past. I think that we must be discriminating in our approach, more especially as each thing which we do by Statute is cumulative. There are quite a lot of ways and methods of preserving these things. The matter is getting a little like aid to the underdeveloped territories of the world. The methods of granting that aid are becoming perplexing, and they are, of course, cumulative.
I assure the right hon. Member for South Shields that what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) have said on the subject does not argue any lack of sympathy on our part with the aesthetic and historic considerations at stake, still less any general lack of confidence in the wisdom of the local authorities which are to exercise the discretion. But it can be rather difficult for a local authority to resist local pressures for spending money on these worthy causes. I have seen those pressures at work. When all one has to decide is whether £10,000—which does not sound very much in relation to the finances of a local authority—shall be spent for the preservation of such and such a house, it seems rather mean and almost disloyal to the neighbourhood to say "No". But these things can get out of hand and there must be


a reasonable limitation to them. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment should be accepted as it stands.
If I am right in thinking—I may be wrong—that List III offers a half-way house between what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for and what the Bill at present does, then I should be favourably disposed to an Amendment at a later stage. I appreciate that Lords Amendments to Private Members' Bills are not highly prized. I have in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is worrying about that, but the Government must have provided a Financial Resolution for the Bill to have got so far, and I should rather doubt whether, having provided such a Resolution, they would allow the Bill to go into the limbo of forgotten causes on Prorogation. Therefore, I do not think we need be too worried about Lords Amendments. I cannot commit the Government, hon. Members will understand, nor the Lords.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Nor can we.

Mr. Bell: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by saying that he cannot commit the Government.

Mr. Rippon: We cannot commit the Lords.

Mr. Bell: An Amendment moved in another place on these lines might be reasonable, but failing that, I must oppose this Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I support the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his Amendment. I am not so scared of the consequences as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) seems to be.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Seems to have been.

Mr. Cooke: "Seems to have been," I beg his pardon. My experience of local authority work does not go back so as that of the right hon. Member for South Shields, but it goes back somewhat further than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) for it was in 1954 that I joined a local authority.
My experience has been that on the whole there is a certain disinclination to spend money on things mentioned in this Bill. This Amendment might cause a little more money to be spent on worthy buildings and other local features. If the decision is left in the hands of the local authority and the Minister's approval is not to be required, that possibly will arouse much greater local interest in these matters. There will be much more local debate. If a particular building does not get a grant or assistance, at least the public will become more interested in these things and that is what I should like to see.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend has not considered the hypothesis that possibly a certain building might get a grant when it ought not to get it.

Mr. Cooke: I should rather see the danger of certain unworthy buildings receiving grants than that any worthy one should not get the grant, which is what I feel might happen if the Bill went through unamended.
We have heard about lists and the suggestion that all the worthy buildings would be included in those lists, but that is by no means the case. On the hill overlooking my constituency there is a house called Rownham House. The people who have inherited it want to take it down and put up a block of flats on the site. Because the house is not listed, the Somerset County Council is allowing that to happen. If this Amendment were operating they might have thought more carefully about the case. That house might have been saved and the whole surroundings improved thereby.
There are parts of the constituency of any hon. Member who represents an ancient and historic city where there are unlisted buildings which are worthy of protection as groups. By his Amendment the right hon. Member for South Shields is trying to make local authorities spend more in a worthy cause. It would not worry me, even as a strong opponent of lavish public expenditure, if a few questionable buildings were saved, provided that more of the worth-while ones were preserved. As one of the youngest Members interested in this matter, I wish to join myself as an ally


with one of our older colleagues and hope that his Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I listened, I confess, with some stupefaction to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I thought that the Tory Party as a whole was in favour of giving local authorities such responsibility as they could safely exercise.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Yes.

Mr. Kershaw: I should have thought this was an instance in which that could be safely exercised. It is not as if the hand of the Ministry would be unduly absent from this matter, even if the Amendment were accepted. As we know, every local authority operates under financial conditions which are fairly closely circumscribed from Whitehall. We may be quite certain that if they showed themselves wildly lavish in respect of this Clause they would find they would not get so much in the general grant or by some other means.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. R. Cooke) mentioned, there are a good many buildings in remoter parts of the country—further away from Whitehall, if that is any definition of remoteness—which are worthy of preservation but which themselves do not compare with some of the great houses with which the Historic Buildings Council normally occupies itself. They are worthy of preservation and local people believe that they add to the character of their town or countryside.
In my part of the country, in Gloucestershire, there are, strangely enough, ancient factories. They have been there since the Middle Ages. They have a peculiar charm and fitness for purpose. It would be rather unlikely that the Historic Buildings Council would interest itself in them. They have never been the scene of the death of a Queen nor had Sir Walter Raleigh walking through corridors in them, but they are matters of interest. For centuries they have given a peculiar character to the valleys in which they

stand. They are landmarks which the local people would wish to preserve.
I see no reason why the gentleman in Whitehall should say whether the local council is right in this matter or not. I also ask who the gentleman in Whitehall will actually be. I do not know enough about this kind of administration to know who would come wearing a bowler hat, or whether he would come from Whitehall or from the local planning office. He may come from that office and put on a different bowler hat from the one which he normally wears. Probably he would be working in the locality in any case.
The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, that as there is a List III to which the council can add without let or hindrance this Amendment to that extent is unnecessary, does not stand up.

Mr. Ronald Bell: That argument would not stand up and that is why I did not use it. I was suggesting the possibility that List III—

The Chairman: If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) would address the Chair it would be easier for the whole Committee to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Bell: I apologise, Sir William. I was in some doubt whether to turn this way to my hon. Friend, or the other way, and I chose the wrong way. My point was that List III—and this is the point I am not sure about—may have some fixed status so that the local authority cannot add to it as it wants. If that is the position there is little ground for the Amendment, but if the local authority can add to it as it wishes there is no difference between that and what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has proposed.
While I am on my feet, may I make another correction? I referred to Hall Caine being against sin. I should have said Mark Twain.

Mr. Kershaw: Let us go on the second supposition of my hon. Friend, that the local authority is entitled to add to the list of buildings. That would not help it if the inspector from Whitehall were to come and decide whether a loan was or was not to be granted. I do not think that meets the point put forward in the


Amendment. However, as I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and myself agree upon one thing, which is that we do not know whether List III exists or what it is for, perhaps I had better abandon that part of the argument and turn to another point.
It may be thought that the control that local authorities are likely to exert over this sort of grant may be something less than would be exerted if they also had the assistance of the gentleman from Whitehall, but I rather doubt it. It may be, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said during the Committee stage, that at one time the Duke of Omnium could summon the chairman of the rural district council to his castle and tell him that the council should contribute to the upkeep of the castle roof. Those days may have existed at one time, but I rather doubt whether the Duke of Omnium could do that now He probably does not live in his castle, in any case.
I therefore do not think that undue pressure would be put on local authorities in that way. If pressure there were, I think it far more likely that it would be put on councils in such a way that they did not realise it, with the result that the building might be disposed of more favourably because of the improvements that had been made—but another Clause takes care of that possibility.
In principle, I am certain that, where-ever possible, we should allow local authorities the greatest discretion to carry out their duties as they please. I believe that this is a case in which they can very properly do so, and in which their view might be very much better than the view of the gentleman from Whitehall. I therefore support the Amendment.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: The Committee ought to be grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), because his Amendment directs, as I think it properly should, the attention of the Committee to the question of whether or not Whitehall should, or need, come to the assistance of the local authority. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the trust that he is prepared to give—and which I apprehend most hon. Members will be pre-

pared to give—to local authorities, he struck a very responsible chord, but one has to look at the reasons for the Clause as it now is worded in giving the local authorities the additional safeguard—because that is what I believe it to be—of the consent that the Minister would have to give before any contribution could be made.
I believe that the consent of the Minister would be a healthy and a necessary condition to any grant given by local authorities because, when one talks of the "consent of the Minister" what one is really saying is that the Minister should have the opportunity of considering the reports of his experts. And I would hope that the experts who undertook the duty of advising the Minister would not be wearing the mythical bowler that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) anticipated, but would more likely be people wearing beards, and having some taste in architecture—

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. and learned Friend seriously suggesting that we should hand over the administration of the country to people with beards?

Mr. Gardner: No, that is the last thing I should urge on the Committee—nor do I hope that my hon. Friend is urging upon the Committee that it should be handed over to people who wear bowler hats.
In all seriousness, I suggest that the Committee should bear in mind the very valuable assistance that experts could give in their advice to the Minister before the Minister exercises his discretion in giving his consent before any grant is made. All these matters are for people who are best able to exercise that somewhat nebulous and difficult quality of taste. If, for example, a local council had a contemporary affection for some old but somewhat ungainly piece of architecture, the giving of a grant to preserve that building might mean that a more meritorious house or building in the neighbourhood would have to fall into neglect. No doubt all the town halls in Yorkshire, built in the reign of Victoria, have an attraction for my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley).
There is no doubt that when the plans for the rebuilding of this Palace of


Westminster were put forward by Barry they were approved by the majority of people, who saw in them a splendid house far the exercise of the duties that we in this Palace of Westminster still undertake. A couple of generations later, the attitude of people towards such merits as there might be in the architecture of some parts of this Palace changed. Again, taste has changed, and when people now come here they look at some of the architecture, some with curiosity, some with admiration, and others with astonishment.
These are all matters of taste, and in deciding what should qualify on the basis of good taste, on the basis of virtue in architectural design and appeal, something that will last, and appeal not only to this generation but to generations to come, I would suggest in all earnestness that the need for the advice of experts is obvious.
Local authorities have planning officers and other experts who are fully qualified to assist in some of the problems that crop up, but I submit that in a matter that depends essentially on personal tastes, and where one has to judge for generations ahead, it is necessary that the best experts, and those with the highest qualifications, should be engaged in resolving the problems that will lie ahead, not only of the Minister but of the local councils which will have to give these grants.
I am all against the effect of the dead hand of the Civil Service upon enterprises that require zeal and initiative, but there is another side to the picture. There can be, and I believe that, for the purposes of this Bill, there ought to be, a beneficial rein upon the over-zealous. There should be an opportunity to see that a proper caution and prudence is brought to bear in the solution of these problems.
For those reasons, I regret that I cannot support this Amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: All hon. Members will agree that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has much greater experience of local authority affairs than most hon. Members and no one would dispute his authority on many aspects of these affairs. But I must say that on this one he does not

carry me with him, for it seems that we are seeking to open the gate to a wide extent to local authorities to give grants which might, in the national interest, not be to our advantage.
I am sure that none of my hon. Members would wish to take away the authority and power of local authorities. Indeed, we are now seeking to increase those powers, certainly in the Metropolis. But in this case we are looking at it from a national point of view. We are considering buildings throughout the country which we wish to see preserved for all time. It may be that a local authority will consider that a particular building is of interest within the scope of that local authority, but, taken from a national point of view, it might possibly seem that the building does not merit money being spent on it from public and local funds.
It has been suggested that if local authorities did, or attempted to, spend money on buildings which had insufficient architectural merit to warrant the expenditure there was a method in Whitehall of cutting the general grant. I do not think that that is a practical solution, or that it comes within the scope of this excellent Bill.
We must, after all, balance local and national interest. No one would dispute that a small building somewhere near Stratford which might have connections with an author might also be of considerable interest to that area. I have no hesitation in saying that if such an application went to the Ministry these factors would be taken into consideration. The Ministry would consider not only the importance of it to the nation, but also its importance to the area, and while the authority concerned might have a specific desire to preserve a building which it considered to be of local interest, it may also be of national interest.
Mention has been made of the gentleman in Whitehall and his bowler hat and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) thought that a bearded gentleman might do even better. In this case I think that neither solution is correct. I would prefer to see a different type of gentleman, perhaps one in a tweed suit or in plus-fours who knows the local area, the importance of the building concerned and


who is qualified to give an opinion on whether or not it is of sufficient interest.

Mr. James MacColl: Would the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) consider whether the man in the Clapham omnibus might be the best person?

Dr. Glyn: I entirely agree, and I wish we had a building of this nature in Clapham which we could preserve as a national heritage.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I would think that omnibuses are covered by the terms of the Bill.

Dr. Glyn: In that case, we have in my constituency the Ministry of Transport museum in which are preserved a number of omnibuses and other items.
When the Minister replies I hope that he will deal with two points. The first is the question of List III and I would be grateful if he would tell us how this will operate. Secondly, if a local authority puts up a good case for a building showing that it has not so much an architectural interest but is of great interest to the local community and has some historical association, possibly with some celebrity, author or actor who lived in the area, would that building qualify under the Bill as it stands without the Amendment?
If I could have those two assurrances, principally that the local authorities will be able to give their expert evidence so that real notice will be taken of it, I would be much happier. I am sure that the Minister will be influenced not only by the opinions of the gentleman in Whitehall, but also by the evidence of the local authorities which is given to him. After all, they can produce all the facts, the historical background and everything else which is necessary when assessing the importance of a building. When he is armed with all those facts I would like my right hon. Friend to say that if, on balance, it is a building considered to be of merit, it will get the grant.
We are, in all fairness to the ratepayers, considering a matter which is of vital importance to them. We are also dealing with our national heritage and the overriding power of the Ministry to be able to say that it does not think that the local ratepayers' money is

warranted being spent on a particular project.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. MacColl: I approach the Amendment with great embarrassment because to find myself in a situation where I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is something I never thought to reach and it makes me think that I must be wrong.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Perhaps it is because the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I served together on the same local authority for so long.

Mr. MacColl: That is really a double-edged remark after what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said about the extravagance of some local authorities. I do not think that in Paddington there would be found any particular desire to spend money on preserving historic buildings.
The right hon. Member for South Shields speaks on this matter with tremendous authority, not only because he has long experience of local government. I am not sure whether he can claim to have been on a local authority before I was born. If he joined a county council in March, 1908, he was, although if he joined the Mitcham Council in November, he probably was not. It is a near thing, either way.

Mr. Ede: I do not want my hon. Friend to get my biography wrong. I was first elected to a local council in April, 1908, and I understand, therefore, that my hon. Friend was alive at that time. I have never served on any council in Mitcham.

Mr. MacColl: Then my right hon. Friend was a member of his local authority before I was born—by two months. Thus on that score alone one must regard my right hon. Friend with very great respect. My right hon. Friend also speaks on this subject with an unrivalled authority since he has worked for many years on the Historic Buildings Council and he probably knows more about the problems involved in grant-aiding historic buildings than anyone. For those two reasons I find it difficult to disagree with him


However, on the matter under discussion there are a number of reasons why it is wise to keep in this safeguard. I understand that under the Bill there will be no difficulty for buildings listed on the Ministry list and that local authorities may grant-aid them if they wish. Presumably, if local authorities need to borrow money to pay for loans, they would probably have to obtain loan sanction and, of course, if they obtained that then everything would be at large and they would have to justify their cases. But otherwise, as I understand it, in the case of a listed building, there would be no trouble or hold-up and a local authority could move.
An important question is in what circumstances an authority would wish to help a building that is not listed. There would seem to be two factors here involved; first, that there may be buildings which are not of sufficient importance to be listed, and, secondly, that the list may be not complete or not efficient. That is a problem with which the Parliamentary Secretary might care to deal when he replies to the debate.
The Estimates Committee, when going into this matter two Sessions ago, was told that the Ministry list was only two-thirds completed for England and not completed for Wales and that it would be about another seven years before it would be completed. I do not know what the position is today and whether, in fact, the listing covers the whole country.
It seems desirable, therefore, that a local authority should have the power, which the Bill gives, of being able to point to a building and to say, "We think that this is worthy and should be helped." Then there would be an obligation on the Minister to have it adequately inspected to see whether it was suitable for listing or whether for some other reason it ought to be assisted.
It seems to me that it is a very skilled and specialist kind of jab to look at an old building and decide how much it will cost to put it into repair. To guess what kind of problems will arise is something which an ordinary architect is not likely to be able to do. It is a job for the historical architect who has a special knowledge of the structure of old buildings. Not only that, but I think

it is fair to say that in many cases there are specialists within the specialist field. There are certain people who are experts on a particular period or on a particular type of building.
Indeed, the Estimates Committee was told by the National Trust that it not infrequently got in touch with the Ministry saying that there was a certain type of building on which it would like advice and asking who is the best person to inspect the building and to give advice. If that sort of problem faces a body like the National Trust, if that is a matter on which the Historic Buildings Council has to seek advice from a specialist architect, it seems to me that the position of the local authority is extremely difficult. Many local authorities have a very experienced and efficient architect's department, but not every local authority has even a full-time architect. Therefore, when the Barsetshire Rural District Council receives an application from, say, the Duke of Omnium, the council wants to know what sort of questions it ought to ask before deciding whether to make a contribution. It will want to know the kind of problems which are likely to arise and it will need to seek advice from somebody.
I should have thought that the effect of the limitation on the powers of local authorities was really to give them the Minister's telephone number and to say, "Before you go any further, get in touch with the Minister and obtain his advice as to the sort of person who should inspect the building in order to say whether the work is worth doing." There ought to be two qualifications. One is that the building is on the list and the local authority can help it; the other is that it is not on the list, in which case the local authority needs specialist advice before deciding whether to sink public money in the building.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Member refers to the necessity to get advice from the Ministry, and I agree that expert advice should be obtained, but the Clause does not say "advice." It says "consent." That is a point on which I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MaeColl: I think a possible way of doing it would be similar to the matter of superannuation funds. A local authority may invest its money in equity


shares but financial advice is first required from an expert before this is done. We might limit the discretion in that way so that advice is obtained from a recognised authority before the work is commenced. One has to expect the Minister to behave reasonably and helpfully and to be interested in guiding local authorities. I should not have thought that the limitation of consent, subject as it is to Parliamentary criticism and deputations from local Members and all the other horrors which bother a Minister, was an unduly repressive restriction.
As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said, a local authority can burn its fingers. It can become involved in what looks like a simple job but by the time one has discovered all the dry rot, death watch beetle and so on, the commitment is very considerable. The Ministry has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for having undertaken work which eventually cost much more than it was expected to cost. If that is the position which confronts the Historic Buildings Council and the Ministry, it is going to be much more difficult for the Barsetshire Rural District Council to limit its responsibilities.
It would be an awful tragedy if this led to a lot of public money being wasted, so that people said, "This is local authority irresponsibility and profligacy. This is work which should not be done by local authorities. They should stick to their graves and lavatories, and leave art and culture to other bodies." This is a view which is sometimes expressed, and it is not one which ought to be encouraged. The best way to discourage it is to take steps to avoid costly mistakes. I therefore think it is wise to keep in the Bill the words which the Amendment seeks to delete.

Mr. Channon: It is peculiarly ill-fitting that I should have to resist an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said that the right hon. Gentleman was serving on a local authority before he was born. The right hon. Gentleman was serving on a local authority before my mother was born. Therefore, I certainly bow to him in his knowledge of this subject. I must say that, on balance, I agree with the views

expressed by the hon. Member for Widnes.

Mr. Ede: May I point out to the hon. Member that the Government Department which was eulogised by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for its advice was not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Channon: That may well be so.
I was going on to say, that should this Committee, in its wisdom, decide not to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, we ought to have a categorical undertaking from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on how the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will interpret its duties under this Measure should a local authority ask permission in respect of a building not on the statutory list.
As the Committee will appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is one on which he spoke on Second Reading and I think that he would have moved such an Amendment in Standing Committee had it not been for some misunderstanding. He has on many occasions explained why he wants local authorities to have discretion in this matter. But I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have taken the point that local authorities will be subject to pressures from enthusiasts many of whom have very little experience in a very specialised field.
Nothing would do greater damage to the cause that we all have in mind, namely, the continued protection of fine, historic buildings than if local authorities were to get themselves in a position where they made a grant in respect of a building which afterwards turned out to be of little or no value so that the ratepayers felt they had been cheated. It would be a great disincentive to other local authorities, and certainly to the local authority directly involved, to take the risk of making another grant towards the upkeep of a building.
I am advised that, generally speaking, local authorities themselves, recognising the importance of establishing that any building which they are required to help preserve is of real architectural or historical interest, are reassured if the building is on the list, for then it must


be of special architectural or historical interest. But there will be occasions when buildings are not of sufficient importance to be on the list, or are in an area where the lists have not yet been completed. Incidentally, I should like to hear from by hon. Friend how the lists are progressing. There will be occasions when it would be right for local authorities to contribute towards grants for the upkeep of such buildings, perhaps where there are group of buildings, none of which on its own is worthy of being Listed but where the whole group taken together is of historic or architectural interest.
I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann), who, I know, was hoping to be with us but, unfortunately, is not here yet, speaking on this point on Second Reading, when he referred to cottages in Devon. There will be occasions when it will be right for local authorities to preserve such buildings, but I feel that it is much better that in these rather exceptional circumstances they should be obliged to obtain the consent of the Minister.
12 noon.
The ninth Annual Report of the Historic Buildings Council for England, issued on 16th May, and no doubt written by the right hon. Gentleman, discusses in paragraphs 8 and 9, the un-co-operative attitude of local authorities. I think that the sanction of obtaining the Minister's consent in these cases will protect them against any possible challenge to their actions.
My hon. Friend has the advantage of being able to take the advice of his advisory committee and, therefore, he may be able to gauge what estimates informed opinion might make. I think that this will not make it more difficult for local authorities to give grants for unlisted buildings, but will make it easier for them; otherwise, there may be many occasions when a local authority, although it finds it has a building to which it would like to contribute, will be frightened of people saying, "This building is no good at all; it is a waste of the ratepayers' money." If a local authority were able to say that it had had to obtain the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his consent had been given,

it would have an answer to any charge that it had been wasting the ratepayers' money.
I have been interested to hear the debate on this subject, with hon. Members on both sides taking different views but without party political content. On both sides there has been local disarray as to what should be done. I accept the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) who, I think, put his finger on the problem when he asked how was the Ministry to interpret its powers under this Clause and what sort of view it would take if a local authority put a case for making a contribution for a building not on the statutory list. If my hon. Friend is able, as I expect, to satisfy the Committee that under no circumstances will he or his right hon. Friend be unreasonable about this matter, and that a local authority, unless it is totally unreasonable in carrying out a stupid scheme, can be assured that it will get the consent of the Minister to the amount that it wishes to contribute, and that this will be interpreted in a logical and realistic way, I think the Committee will feel inclined to reject the Amendment, even though it has been sponsored by someone for whom we have such very great respect, the right hon. Member for South Shields.

Mr. Jasper More: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said in opposing the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I do so in a spirit of deep humility, in deference to the great experience of the right hon. Member. I have a certain pride, as well as humility, in that I think I am one of the few hon. Members present who can claim to have been born just before the right hon. Gentleman was first elected to a local authority. In another respect, I am a mere chicken, because it is only since 1958 that I have been on a local authority myself.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) stressed, very rightly, the difficulties which will face local authorities in coming to these decisions. He instanced the difficulty of appreciating the state of repair and the possible liabilities in which they might be involved and


practical considerations of that kind. There is, I think, another difficulty which faces local authorities. That is in the matter of specialised knowledge. There are nowadays many different types of building which may or may not need preservation, and a lot of specialist knowledge is involved. In my own local authority, on whose planning committee I serve, we were faced not long ago with the case of an ancient ruin in our county and we decided, perhaps wrongly, that we would not do anything about it. When the Ministry of Works came to look at it, it turned out to be a special type of castellar construction on the Welsh border, and the Ministry itself paid for it. That is an instance of the difficulty which local authorities may have in coming to their decisions.
I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West referring again to the subject of groups of buildings. That is a matter that affects us very much in some of our smaller and more ancient towns, and I should like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary how impressed I have been on a number of occasions by the interest taken by officials of his Department in dealing with this very difficult topic.
I was glad to hear the intervention of the right hon. Member for South Shields about the Ministry of Works. We need some explanation from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the way in which his Ministry works with the Ministry of Works in these matters. Referring again to the case that I have mentioned, I would say that it was, in the upshot, the Ministry of Works which intervened and which did the work. If the Parliamentary Secretary would say a little about the relationship of his Ministry with the Ministry of Works, it might reassure us in the feeling that we would have as to the interpretation that may be put upon this Clause.
On the main issue raised by the Amendment, I should like to see, having served on a local authority myself, this safeguard written into the Bill. There could be a great temptation for a local authority to be swayed by local pressure or sentiment to do things which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West has said, might in the long run be damaging or destructive to

the main cause that we all support. I say, with regret to the right hon. Member for South Shields, that I shall be opposing the Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I thought that we were going to start and continue rather like a newspaper correspondent, "Who is the youngest inhabitant? Who is the oldest inhabitant? Who has served longest on the council? Is this a record?" I do not think that any of us will challenge the record of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields in local government. He is an historic councillor of special interest who ought to be preserved. One day he may be of such outstanding historic interest as to become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, who will, no doubt, erect and preserve a suitable monument; but we hope that that day will not came for many, many years.
This, perhaps, is the explanation which I ought to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) about the division of responsibility between my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Works. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is responsible, as was explained on Second Reading, in accordance with the powers under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, for buildings of outstanding historic interest. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the local authority to supplement those powers.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacCall), dealing with this matter in Committee, said that he found himself in a position of considerable embarrassment because there was a conflict between the two father figures to whom he looked for advice, the right hon. Member for South Shields and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who made a great contribution to our discussions in Committee. On balance, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering came down on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I think that the hon. Member for Widnes then thought that he would look to my hon. Friend as a father-substitute. I hope that he will


maintain that attitude throughout our proceedings today.
I have been associated with local government since 1945, when I first became a member of a local authority—if I may add my own reminiscences to those which have been passed about the Chamber this morning—and throughout that time I have taken a view very similar to that of the right hon. Member for South Shields. My whole instinct, like hits, is to give local authorities the fullest possible responsibility. I newt have believed, and I do not believe, that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best in all these matters which are essentially of local importance. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was never associated with that observation, although I have never seen any report that he denied its truth at what would have been an appropriate time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said, local authorities need assurances about whether or not they should make grants where they are considering buildings which are not on the statutory list. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the ninth Annual Report of the Historic Buildings Council for England. In paragraph 8, it is said:
The attitude of local authorities can closely affect the future of historic buildings which some other person or body is struggling to preserve … We urge local authorities, where it is open to them to do so, to use their discretion in favour of, and not against, preservation of those buildings which genuinely deserve the most sympathetic treatment on architectural or historic grounds. This is particularly the case when the need for preservation arises from the value of the buildings as a group.
We all agree with that, I am sure, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow that we are anxious that the powers in the Bill, if it becomes law, shall be used for preserving groups of buildings.
The Report goes on to explain some of the difficulties which local authorities face in these matters:
Where an individual or voluntary organisation is struggling to raise sufficient funds to restore a building, it is doubly difficult for them if the local authority is unenthusiastic, or even—as sometimes happens—hostile to its preservation. There is, of course, no question of 'sabotage', either figurative or actual; but in these days it is hard for any private person to repair a building, and most of all to restore it to a place in the life of the

community, without the sympathy and, if possible, financial help of a local authority. We note with particular regret cases where preservation is hampered by lack of such cooperation, since so many buildings owe their survival to the help of an enlightened local authority.
That is an accurate statement of the position. We are anxious that local authorities shall feel encouraged by the Bill to make this contribution.
I do not think that local authorities are unsympathetic, but they are often afraid that they will make a payment of public money which will turn out to be an error of judgment in some way and then they will be blamed. The Minister's consent in those cases covered by Clause 1 (1, b) will protect them against challenge, and the fact that they have consent or know that they can get it will enable those councillors who are enthusiastic to press upon their more reluctant colleagues the importance of the work which can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked what advice we should give to these local authorities, and other hon. Members took up the same point. I give an assurance that in the Ministry we are concerned to see the Bill effective. We want to give sympathetic advice. We want it interpreted as liberally as possible. I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) that we should weigh very carefully the advice given by the local authority itself. It may not have expert advisers; it may not have surveyors or others who know a great deal about these matters, but it will be able to explain the historic importance for itself of buildings in its area. This will be taken into account.
12.15 p.m.
There was some question about whether this advice would be given by the bowler-hat brigade or the long-haired gentleman—whether long-bearded or long-haired, I cannot quite remember—but, of course, the Minister will not be making these judgments just on his own opinion. We shall have the benefit of the expert advice of the Advisory Committee on Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest, of which Sir William Holford has been chairman. This body has done a tremendous amount of work and its advice is of the greatest value.
I have been asked about the statutory list and what progress is being made with it. On Second Reading, I gave some statistics. By 31st November last year, out of 1,474 local authority areas 998 were covered by full statutory lists. There are, a further 251 incomplete lists known as interim lists. Altogether, no less than 80,000 buildings are included in the statutory list so far, and we expect to have about 100,000 in due course.
The provisional list has no statutory force. It is really the next stage after the survey towards the compilation of the statutory list. It is possible to say at that stage that a building is of such special interest that it would deserve public money being spent on it, with an opportunity for representation and a good deal of discussion. At that stage, of course, we receive the advice of the Holford Committee as well.
I feel that the Bill as now drafted will make it a good deal easier for local authorities to offer grants for unlisted buildings. There is no doubt about the buildings which are listed. The Minister's consent is represented by the fact that they are included in the Section 30 list.
Having regard to the assurances I have given, that it is the desire of the Ministry to operate this Measure as sympathetically as possible, that we want to encourage the local authorities to use their powers, and that we have no intention of trying to prevent them giving grants where they genuinely feel the need, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he need not press the Amendment.

Mr. Worsley: I understand that there are three grades in the list and that information regarding buildings in the third grade is in the possession only of the local authority itself. The owners are not told. Would the Clause apply to this third grade?

Mr. Rippon: I am not quite sure of the answer to that. I think—I will tell my hon. Friend later if I am wrong—that the answer is, "No'. It is with grade I and grade II that we are concerned.

Mr. Kershaw: I have listened with great care to the case put against the Amendment, and I have noted what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary

has just said about the sympathy with which his Ministry will examine future applications of this sort. I have no doubt that what he says is true. Nevertheless, I am always a little suspicious about appeals, usually from members of the Government, to allow something to go through on the ground that it does not really matter because they will be sympathetic about it after it is through. Basically, the matter should be fully understood before it is passed into law, and, therefore, while I accept that the Bill will be sympathetically applied, nevertheless I should like to see the Amendment put in the Bill.
However, I bear in mind that, if the Amendment were pressed to a Division at this hour of the day on a Friday, we might lose the whole Bill. That would be a disaster, because the Bill in itself is extremely desirable. Although I should like to support the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on one of the few occasions that I have had the opportunity of doing so, if he were to call a Division on it he might not find me in the Lobby with him.

Mr. Ede: I thank hon. Members on both sides for their kindly references to me—at least, I think that they were meant to be kindly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, a person reaches a stage when he does not desire to be reminded of how long he has been wandering about. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation about the way in which the Bill will be administered.
I share the difficulty which confronts the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). I have found the same difficulty on most Fridays. There are twenty-seven Orders of the Day on the Order Paper, all concerning private Members. I do not know which of them some hon. Members do not desire to be reached, although I have been studying the Order Paper in an endeavour to find out.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) on making the most eloquent speech in support of a bad cause which has been made in this Chamber since the days of Burke. However, I want to see the Bill passed into law. I am not like the people of 1832 who were concerned with the Bill, the whole Bill and


nothing but the Bill. The Bill with the Amendment would be better than the Bill without it, but the Bill without the Amendment is better than no Bill at all. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end to insert:
and, at the time of making a contribution under this section towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance of a building may also, by grant or loan, contribute towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the upkeep of any garden occupied with the building and contiguous or adjacent thereto".

The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment to the Title, in line 3, after "interest," to insert:
and the upkeep of gardens occupied therewith.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. May I ask you, Sir William, whether this Amendment is in order under the terms of the Financial Resolution, which states:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for contributions by local authorities towards the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament,
and so on? Before we embark on a consideration of the Amendment, I think that we should know whether it is covered by the Financial Resolution, because it seems to me rather doubtful.

Mr. Channon: Further to that point of order. I think that I must move the Amendment because I understood that it was the only way which was in order in which I could get such a provision into the Bill. But I should be most grateful, Sir William, if you would indicate whether it is covered by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order. If the Financial Resolution has been accepted, surely the Amendment is in order.

Mr. Fletcher: I have not raised the point of order in any sense of obstruction but merely so that we may keep our proceedings regular and in order. It seemed to me that there was a doubt

about the matter, and, while I have no doubt that the Committee will want to approve the Amendment, I should like the Committee, or someone at any rate, to consider whether any amendment of the Financial Resolution is involved.

The Chairman: The Financial Resolution is very wide, and I think that the Amendment falls within it.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to you, Sir William, for your Ruling.
The reason for the Amendment is that in Committee I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) an undertaking to try to do what I could to include historic gardens within the scope of the Bill largely because of the precedent in the 1953 Act which allowed contributions to be made to parks or gardens which were contiguous or adjacent to a historic building, and also in deference to the views and wisdom of my hon. Friend.
I think that we would all agree that, in common sense, it would be a pity if a grant could be made to a building while the beautiful gardens in which it stood fell into decay and ruin. I am advised that, owing to the scope of the Bill, I can only deal with the point on this recommittal Motion and I can only make it possible for local authorities to contribute to gardens adjacent to buildings which themselves are in receipt of a grant. Therefore, this is a very limited concession, not because I have no wish to help further in this matter, since I should like to see gardens helped in this way, but because for reasons of order I do not think I can enlarge the Bill further than I propose to do by the Amendment. We have had to go through this recommittal procedure for the Bill since a further, although I am sure very small, sum of money would be required.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will not be disappointed that I cannot be of further assistance, but I assure him that I have done what I could. Gardens are a subject which is not frequently debated in the House of Commons, and, perhaps, on this glorious, if it can be so called, 1st June it is appropriate that we should spend a few moments in discussing historic gardens, even though they are


of a limited type. I hope that hon. Members will support the Amendment.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I support the Amendment. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said. It would be a great pity to take over a historic building, or a building of great merit and interest, and not be able to contribute to the maintenance of its grounds and gardens. In some circumstances, the grounds and gardens are more valuable than the house or the building. It therefore seems to me that this is a sensible and correct Amendment. Beautifully kept gardens and grounds can improve a district's amenities.
The Amendment is essential to the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I, also, support the Amendment. It perhaps meets the point which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had in mind, because it is an Amendment for the avoidance of doubt. It is fairly well established that a building includes the curtilage of it and a pleasure garden enjoyed with the house, and that is why the Amendment comes within the Money Resolution.
However, when the Bill, when it is an Act, is interpreted in the courts, the fact that Parliament meant by "building" also the garden could not be mentioned. Therefore, this is a wise Amendment for the avoidance of doubt. Although I think that the garden is included by the word "building", there have been a great many cases on the meaning of the word "building". I do not want to go into them now, but the matter has been considered in relation to the planning Acts and it has often been of considerable relevance.
12.30 p.m.
I think, personally, that even without the Amendment we should probably be all right, but I think that it is a good idea to have it, and it would be a great shame if gardens were not included when we are seeking to preserve historic or beautiful houses. I am only sorry that because of the terms of the Money Resolution we cannot go a step further and include gardens even not appurtenant to

a historic house, because there are such things as historic gardens. It would be out of order for me to mention them now, but it is common knowledge that in this country, as in other countries, there are gardens which, while without any appurtenance to buildings, merit support from public funds for their upkeep, if they need it.
Those are the substantial reasons why I support my hon. Friend's Amendment. I wonder whether I may just make a comment on the drafting. It appears to me to be a pity that the words "under this section" have been used in the Amendment. I should have thought that the words "under the foregoing subsection" would have been better, because if we look at the point at which the proposed words are to be inserted we see that we are to say, if we accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
and, at the time of making a contribution under this section towards the expenses
and so on, and then immediately, in the very next line of the Clause, the first line of subsection (2),
A contribution by way of loan under the foregoing subsection.
It is a little bit inelegant from the drafting point of view to refer to a grant or contribution "under this section" and then, in the next line, refer to a contribution under "the foregoing subsection". Even if we were able to accept all the Amendments on the Notice Paper, either in this Committee or subsequently on consideration in the House, still it would remain true, as it is now, that contributions, whether by grant or loan, would only be made under subsection (1); and all the other parts of the Bill deal with the consequences which arise.
Although we do sometimes find in Acts a reference to a grant under "the foregoing subsection" and then, later, to grants made under section so-and-so, I do not think that we have ever actually encountered an occasion when we start with the more general term "section" and then go on immediately afterwards to the more particularised reference to "the foregoing subsection".
I apologise for a purely lawyerly point of view. It is a matter of drafting. I do not know what my hon. Friend's views about it may be, or your views,


Sir William, but, if it were thought appropriate, I should be happy to move a manuscript Amendment—

The Chairman: I think that it may save the hon. Member trouble if I tell him that I am not prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment in that sense.

Mr. Bell: I appreciate that at this stage of the Bill, which still has to go to another place, Sir William, and I would not, if I were in your position, accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I had in mind what I referred to earlier, that private Members do not like manuscript Amendments if they can avoid them, because they do raise slight difficulties at later stages, and, like the hon. Member, I am in a benevolent mood this Friday, and am trying to help hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: May I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for this concession, although it is a limited one? During our previous debate on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) described me as a historic monument, though he put some balm on the wound by saying that it was a well-preserved monument. I am glad that this historic monument, even a battered battlement, has survived long enough to witness this concession.

Mr. Robert Cooke: In contributing my support to this Amendment I should like to begin by assuring my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that I can see hardly any cases where a historic garden as such would be outside the scope of the Bill, because surely almost any garden has some form of garden architecture attached to it, as well as plants and trees, and so on. It would be perfectly simple. If a grant or contribution is to be made to the building, the garden would come within the scope of what we are suggesting.

Mr. Channon: It has nothing to do with flowers and lawns or azaleas and rhododendrons, as I indicated to the Committee.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I did not enlarge on this because I thought it outside the scope of the Bill and out of order, but one example would be the Botanical Gardens at Oxford, a famous national heritage, but I would not have thought, with all respect, that the building at present inside them would have attracted a grant.

Mr. Cooke: Of course, this is where my hon. Friend and I would differ. I would think that the architectural features of almost any historical garden were as worth preserving as any of the horticultural ones, and, indeed, most gardens are enhanced by the presence of architecture.
Clearly, if we make this Amendment to the Clause, it would be possible for the local authorities to make contributions. It need not necessarily, I assume—the Committee will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong—have to be a direct, financial contribution. I imagine that the local authority could merely assist with the maintenance of the gardens by lending its equipment and labour, which would be a most economical way of doing it, and a most harmonious one.
I should have thought also that it would be most important in preserving gardens to bear in mind that there are many other features as well as buildings and horticultural features. There are such things as garden ornaments, lead and stone vases, and so on. All too often these objects find themselves in the antique dealer's yard and end up in the most inappropriate surroundings. This Amendment would seem to do something to stop the removal of these features from their rightful places. That is why I welcome it.
In conclusion, I would say that I see little point in preserving a historic or beautiful building unless its surroundings, too, are preserved, and our legislation as it now stands does nothing like enough to help us in that respect, whereas in France the whole surroundings of a historic building are protected and cannot be built over. In this country we are not protected in that way, and this Amendment will go a little in the direction of preserving the surroundings.
I hope, also, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr), his surroundings as well as his fabric, will be suitably preserved by this Amendment.

Mr. More: I also should like to support this Amendment and to add my regret to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has already said, that it could not be in slightly wider terms. I always feel that in this country we do not quite do ourselves justice as regards gardens. It is not often that any nation can claim to have made one absolutely original contribution to any form of art, but I think that we can claim to have invented the landscape garden; it was William Kent, who left the fence and saw all nature as a garden.
Looking at the term of the Amendment, restricted as it is, I think we must see that there may be certain difficulties in applying it as widely as we would wish. The sort of situation which could face us is that of the historic and beautiful garden not really attached to any building. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) will probably know the famous garden in Yorkshire where—

The Chairman: Order. That would clearly be outwith the scope of the Money Resolution, and, therefore, it would not be in order to discuss it now.

Mr. More: I apologise, Sir William.
I will come directly to the question of gardens which are attached to buildings. I would instance the importance of maintaining garden's in connection with the famous gardens of Powis Castle, close to Where I live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) so rightly said, there can be much more to a garden than the mere lawns, grass, flowers, and so on. Some gardens, even in this country, though perhaps not so much as an Italy, are great works of architecture. Anybody who has been to Powis Castle will remember the great terraces at different levels, all of which are themselves great works of building, and if anything went wrong very large sums would be needed to keep them in their proper state. I am therefore very glad to add my support to the Amendment, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West has rightly

said, a building cannot be seen in its true character unless it also has its true setting. I am sure that that is what all of us here would like to preserve.

Mr. Gardner: I support the Amendment, for two reasons. The first reason is a very obvious one, namely that a garden is an integral and delightful part of any house that it graces. Some of these old buildings are priceless jewels of architecture. Any jewel needs a proper setting. Many people think that the wonderful gardens which go with some of these houses are as much a joy to visit as the houses themselves.
The second reason why I support the Amendment is that, without desiring for a moment to start What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinham, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has called a lawyer's quibble, I very much doubt whether he is right in his optimism in thinking that the courts would interpret "building" in the context of the Bill as including the garden. Therefore, not only do I think that there as a doubt, but I think that there is a very grave doubt. It is right that the Committee should remove the doubt finally, so far as it can, by the Amendment.
Finally, on Second Reading we heard much about the expense of keeping these old buildings in repair. Anyone who has the smallest garden and who is unable for one reason or another to attend to all the needs of his garden himself, will readily appreciate the growing and, if it is a large garden, the sometimes serious expense of keeping it going. The people who have these large houses and who are unable out of their own pockets to keep the structure in proper repair might well find equal difficulty in keeping the garden in a proper state of cultivation. Because of the way in which the garden is a partner of the house, one resting and leaning for its effect on the other, I ask the Committee to give full support to the Amendment.

12.45 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) for raising this matter in Standing Committee and thereby doing a great service to the Bill and improving it. The Bill without the Amendment would apply to the fixtures and fittings of a garden—


that is to say, the houses and architectural things—but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) that it would not have included gardens attached to the curtilage of the property.
I am rather concerned about one point. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clear this up. The Amendment says that a local authority
at the time of making a contribution towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance of a building may also … contribute towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the upkeep of any garden….
If a local authority makes a grant for a house at one period, could it at a later date make an extra grant for the garden? There are many reasons why the owner might require a grant to enable the building to be preserved, although he might be able to afford to keep up the garden for a number of years. Ten years later he might find that he required some economic support to repair or maintain the garden. I hope that this drafting would not exclude that possibility.
Further, there seems to be no tie-up. As long as the building is a historic building, a very small sum of money could be spent on the building and a very large sum spent on the garden. By that method it would be possible to bring within the compass of the Bill a house which was in reasonably good state of repair but which had a garden which needed maintaining. I believe that under the Amendment a local authority could say to the owner of a very large and beautiful house which he was quite capable of maintaining, "We will give you a token grant for the upkeep of the house but a very large grant for the upkeep of the garden attached to your house".
I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), who asked whether this would include lending equipment and possibly labour. If a local authority already had a large number of gardens to maintain, it might be more economical for it to say to an owner, "Rather than give you £20,000 to maintain your garden, we will be very pleased to lend you the labour and the equipment," and perhaps the bulbs, etc., to be put into the garden. This would

reduce the cost of the work to the ratepayer. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clear up these small points.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Before my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answers the various points put to him, I should like to add one question to which I hope he knows the answer. I have not given him any notice of it. What is the position under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which is referred to in Clause 1? Does the list include gardens which are appurtenant to houses? This is rather relevant to the point we are considering. My impression is that it does. What we are doing is in the nature of a tidying up operation. If we did not do it, it would lead to much complication and difficulty. I apologise for not giving my hon. Friend notice of this horribly specific question. I can but hope that he will be able to give me some indication of what the answer to it is.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that every member of the Committee would desire to express their thanks to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for the legal advice he has given us this morning. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is in touch with the representative of the Whip's Department. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested to that gentleman that the next time there is a vacancy in one of the Law Offices of the Crown the service rendered to the Committee this morning by the hon. Member should be remembered in his favour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."
I have been a little perturbed by the line adopted on the Amendment by some bon. Members. One of the things which I have had to meet from time to time is the suggestion that this kind of thing is a form of outdoor relief to the nobility, and some of the less wealthy members of what used to be the aristocracy. We must make it quite clear. This is not a Bill to supplement the incomes of land owners. The Bill is concerned with the preservation of buildings and, if the Amendment is inserted, gardens of historic or architectural interest. That will be the consideration in the mind of the local authority when considering whether a grant should be made.
This is not a way of helping out the proprietor of a big house when he has fallen on bad times when there has been a run on the Stock Exchange and he has not managed to capture those things that rise spectacularly in value the day after. If it is once suspected that this is a means of providing outdoor relief for people in the classes which I have indicated, the Committee can rest assured that popular enthusiasm for this form of public activity will wane rapidly.

Mr. Rippon: Again, we have had an interesting discussion. I do not think that grave difficulties will arise about the implementation of this provision. In Committee, I made somewhat discouraging noises to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) about extending the scope of the Bill, but I must get myself quickly on-side and say that I, like everyone else, capitulated to his eloquence and the strength of his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) did not do justice to his Amendment when he said that it had very limited scope. The Amendment will enable local authorities to give assistance in the vast majority of cases with which we are concerned. There is the difficulty that the scope of the Bill makes it impossible to provide grant towards the cost of a garden as such unless a contribution is also made for the building.
As we pointed out on Second Reading, however, the definition of "building" in Clause 1 (3) is very wide, as follows:
building' includes any structure or erection and any part of a building as so defined".
It has been clear from the outset, therefore, that there was a power to contribute to the repair of ornamental features, statues and even boundary walls.
I should not like to enter into too detailed a discussion about the legal interpretation that might be given by the courts if ever these matters came before them, but it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is right in saying that if a contribution could be made for the boundary which will be a building for the purposes of the Act, a contribution could then be made to the garden.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) raised two interesting points of interpretation. I think

that the contribution must be made at the time of the making of the contribution for the building. This is not, in practice, likely to cause difficulty, because a nominal contribution of, say, £1 could be made for the building and whatever was necessary could be given as a contribution for the upkeep of the garden. There is no reason why there should not be a small contribution for the building and a large contribution for the garden. All that was ever out of the Bill was the upkeep of the gardens as such. Now, of course, provision will be able to be made for this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, asked whether the local authority, instead of giving a grant or loan, could provide labour or bulbs. There might be difficulty about that. The local authority could, of course, give the occupier the money to hire the bulbs or arrange for the hire of the local authority's equipment. It may be that this could be dealt with in appropriate cases by a suitable arrangement of that kind. I think, therefore, that this will be a useful Amendment to the Bill and will go a long way towards meeting the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. Would I be correct in saying that in the case of an historic building and a garden, it will be possible under the Amendment, by fiction of law, to maintain the garden by giving a. very small payment for the building?

Mr. Rippon: If I can avoid it, I never like to refer to a fiction of the law. Under the law as I hope it will be operative when the Bill is passed, it will be quite possible for a local authority to make a contribution to the garden in the way I have suggested.
1 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked a question about the provisions of Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which refers to lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. It does not specifically refer to gardens. I should have thought that in that context my hon. Friend was right in what he said about a garden normally being included


in the building. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) paid a proper tribute to my hon. Friend for his expertise in drafting. We cam, no doubt, make sure about these matters before the Bill finally goes on to the Statute Book.
The real distinction is between the provision that was originally in the Bill and the provision in Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, which made specific provision for grants for the preservation of historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land. That was the object of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge in Committee, that we should bring the Bill into line with the provisions of the earlier Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: In line 3, after "interest", insert:
and the upkeep of gardens occupied therewith."—[Mr. Channon.]

Bill reported, with Amendments (as amended in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(RECOVERY OF GRANTS ON DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY WITHIN THREE YEARS.)

(1) If, during the period of three years beginning with the day on which a grant is made under this Act to a person towards the repair or maintenance or upkeep of any property, that person disposes of the interest, or any part thereof, held by him in the property on that day by way of sale or exchange or lease for a term of not less than twenty-one years, the local authority may recover from that person, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of the grant, or such part thereof as to them seems fit.

(2) If, in the case of property towards the repair or maintenance or upkeep of which a grant is made under this Act, a person becomes entitled by way of gift from the grantee, whether directly or indirectly (but otherwise than by will), to a part of the interest held by the grantee in the property on the day on which the grant is made, a disposal by the donee in any manner mentioned in the foregoing subsection of the interest so acquired by him in the property, or any part of that interest, shall be treated, for the purposes of that subsection, as a disposal by the grantee of a part of the interest so held by him, and, if, in the case of any

such property, a person becomes entitled by way of such a gift to the whole of the interest held by the grantee therein on the day aforesaid, the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if the grant had been made to the donee instead of to the grantee and that interest had then been held by the donee.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken as conferring on a local authority a right to recover, in the event of proceedings thereunder being brought in relation to disposals of several parts of an interest in property, amounts in the aggregate exceeding the amount of the grant.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It would be convenient also with the new Clause to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert:
(3) It shall be a condition of any contribution made by grant under this section in relation to a building, which is or consists mainly of a dwelling house, that if within three years of any payment by way of such contribution the building is sold, there shall be paid by the vendor to the local authority who made the contribution a sum equal to the amount of the said payment or to the amount of such enhancement of the sale price as the District Valuer may certify to have resulted from the said payment, whichever amount is the less:
Provided that no more than one payment shall be required under this subsection in respect of any one payment by a local authority.
(4) A contribution to which the last foregoing subsection applies and payment by way of such a contribution or under the said subsection to a local authority shall be registered in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the local authority in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this section under subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925.

Mr. Channon: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The new Clause is the result mainly of an undertaking which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, (Mr. Mitchison) in Committee. I should like to say how grateful we were to the hon. and learned Member, who told me that he was unable to be here this morning, for his careful and keen attention to the Bill at that stage.
The House will, I think, agree that this is probably the most important


Amendment to the Bill to be discussed today. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to recover, should they think fit, the whole or part of any grant which they have made towards the upkeep of the building should the property change hands by way of sale, exchange or lease for twenty-one years or more.
It is obviously improper for anyone to make personal profits from these public funds. The new Clause will, I hope, avoid that danger. The person who has received the grant is the person who must repay it if he disposes of the property within a three-year limit unless he does so by gift, in which case the person receiving the property by gift takes the place of the grantee. I hope that the House will agree that it would be wrong to recover from a person who received the property by bequest under a will.
It seems to me that these provisions will be adequate to stop any improper profit-taking speculating. Again, however, this is a permissive power, because there will be cases when it would be unreasonable to recover these grants. There may, for example, have been additional expenditure incurred at the specific request of the local authority. In addition, the local authority might be given discretion not to exercise this power if it would cause undue hardship. I have included subsection (3) in the Clause to prevent a local authority being able to continue to recover these grants if there is more than one sale or disposal of property within the three-year period, since obviously that would be unfair.
The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is subject to various difficulties which my new Clause would avoid. It would be extremely difficult to work out, as the hon. and learned Member would like to do, the enhancement value of the property. I should not envy the task of the district valuer which the hon. and learned Member has sought to impose. It may well be that the element of enhancement was extremely small, and there might be many other reasons why the value of the property had risen. For example, the price of land in the neighbourhood might be an important factor. Therefore, hon. Members will probably agree that it would be extremely difficult to work out the exact enhancement value. It would be fairer and certainly much

simpler to recover the amount of the original grant.
The hon. and learned Member's Amendment would be simple to evade. It refers only to sale. Therefore, all sorts of evasions could be worked out, possibly by gift to a relation or by a release in consideration of a premium. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember, the hon. and learned Member, in his usual courteous way, threatened that he would jeopardise the whole progress of the Bill unless I met him satisfactorily upon the principle of enhancement. I think and hope that I have been able to show that my new Clause closes more loopholes than his Amendment would do.
We all want to stop any improper making of money through these grants. There will, I hope, be few cases when the new Clause will be needed. To make sure that there will be no sharp practice and in the hope that the House will agree that the Clause will be effective in stopping any such practice, I commend it to the House.

Mr. More: I am glad to give my support to the new Clause, which has been so excellently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). A Clause of this kind is essential if we are to secure the public support that we need for legislation of this nature and the feeling that local authorities, if they make these contribution's, can recover in cases when recovery is justified.
When, in Committee a short time ago, we were discussing an Amendment relating to gardens, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) emphasised how important it was that legislation of this type should not be a kind of charity towards the owners of large and expensive country houses. There are cases very different from examples of that kind which weigh upon some of us. May I mention one which is topical? I remind the House that two days ago we had from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government the historic statement that there was to be a new town in Dawley. That designated area includes part of my constituency, and it may give rise to certain curious and unfamiliar problems, of which I will


give one. We have there a famous and historic building which was built by Sir Robert Brooke, Speaker of the House in 1554. For reasons which I need not go into, that building is now in a very poor state, and the present owner is not, and has not been, in a position to do anything to restore it.
The position could arise that for the public interest, and particularly if this new development takes place around it, extensive expenditure would be needed. It is a rather curious situation, and the new Clause is relevant to consideration of it. Expenditure might be made on a private building against the wishes of the owner, or not on the owner's application. That is the kind of situation with which we might be faced here. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say a few words about the position which would arise if a local authority felt it necessary to spend money when that expenditure had not been requested by the owner of the property.
I think that in principle the new Clause is one which we should all support, because I am certain that in the vast majority of cases it is what public opinion would expect to see the House insist on in legislation of this kind.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Gardner: I support the new Clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the clarity which it manages to achieve. I believe that it is necessary to make certain about the purposes of the Bill, beyond peradventure, and I should like to add to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in Committee that the purpose of the Bill is not to provide a new "Poor Law" for people who live in large houses. I believe that the operation of the new Clause will remove all doubt on the issue and emphasise public spirit which is behind the Bill.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said about the practical difficulties of the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I agree that the district valuer would be faced with an insuperable task in deciding what would be the enhancement of the sale price of a property

which has attracted a grant, and I do not see how he could possibly identify the effect of the grant in raising the sale price from all the other influences which inevitably would have the same effect.
Because I believe that confusion and uncertainty would follow the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, and because I believe that in my hon. Friend's new Clause there is certainty. I support the new Clause.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I also support the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in moving the new Clause. This was perhaps an oversight in the original Bill—the kind of oversight which Standing Committees never fail to find out and, in so doing, perform a useful function.
I have one or two doubts about the way in which it is to be done. I see the objections to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I also see some opposite objections to the new Clause. Most of the houses with which we are dealing are large buildings, expensive to live in and to repair, and in most parts of the country, not very marketable.
Let us look at the position which will arise when a person who has a house of this kind receives a grant of money which is spent on the repair or maintenance of the house and then has occasion to sell it within three years of receiving the grant. Let us assume that he receives £10,000. It is possible, and in most parts of the country very likely, that the resale value of the house will be enhanced not by £10,000 but by very much less, perhaps £4,000.
What is the owner's position? He sells the house, and the local authority, which may have quite a diffierent view about this, says to him, "Two years ago you had £10,000 from us, every penny of which you spent on repairing and improving the fabric of the house. Now you have sold the house for £15,000 and you must pay us back £10,000, or something very close to that." He replies, "That is outrageous. Without your grant I should have sold the house for only £4,000 less". The local authority says, "We do not think so."
The trouble is that under the new Clause nothing can be done about that. It is absolutely in the discretion of the


local authority. I appreciate that we shall he dealing with a public body which has shown a sense of public responsibility in making the original grant for the repair of the building, but even public bodies can occasionally be at any rate wrong. Generally, in our legal arrangements we make provision for their opinion to be challenged when the property of the individual is at stake.
I am, therefore, a little worried by this lacuna in the new Clause, although I do not see what can be done. The hon. and learned Member's Amendment in some degree meets that problem, because he brings in the district valuer, who has to estimate the degree of enhancement. I see the difficulties, which my hon. Friend explained, for the district valuer in estimating the enhancement of an historic building by physical repairs which have been carried out. But district valuers almost always have a fairly difficult task to do. They are the long stops in our system of compulsory purchase, and their decisions are by no means always accepted. Quite often one challenges them in the Lands Tribunal or elsewhere.
But they are very skilled, and they are never far wrong, unless a point of law is involved as to the basis upon which they should go. I think that I shall carry with me the Parliamentary Secretary, because like myself he has had experience of this branch of the law, if I say that when we have a major readjustment of a value arrived at by the district valuer it is on a point of law about the basis upon which the valuation should have been made, and once we have a decision on the point of law, it is very rarely necessary to continue the dispute on the actual figure. That is almost always, or very often, then settled by agreement between the parties in the normal case.
The district valuer would be a very useful safeguard here. He would not give perfect justice, but I think that it would be enough, and I do not think it necessary to allow the usual appeal from the district valuer to the Lands Tribunal. In a case like this, one could take a reasonably broad view. But I am unhappy about there being no provision at all and about leaving it to the ipse dixit of the local authority.
My second problem is in the much less usual but certainly real case in

which the value of the property is substantially enhanced in the market by the money which has been spent on it. In the Clause we are dealing solely with cases in which the property is sold within three years of the grant. That is not quite the same as within three years of the purchase of the property by the owner, but it happens to be very much the same thing. Suppose that the property is sold within three years of its having been bought by the owner. Quite soon after buying it, he receives a grant under the Bill which increases the value of the property. He sells the property within three years of having bought it, and by this time the Finance Act, 1962, is in force.
What will be the position about capital gains? He has not held the property for three years and he has sold it at a profit. We are putting a provision in the new Clause that he must repay perhaps the whole amount of the grant to the local authority. Have we thought of the necessity for tying up these two provisions? It would be serious if he had to pay back £10,000 to the local authority and had also to pay Income Tax and perhaps Surtax on £10,000 to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not an objective which we have in mind.
These two problems cannot be solved in a brief debate this afternoon, but they are both substantial—substantial in magnitude, if they are sound. If they are sound in argument, then their magnitude is substantial and they will have to be looked into.
A much smaller point is that, similarly, the discretion of the local authority is unlimited where there is a sale of part of the property. This is the first problem again. That was in the mind of my hon. Friend in drafting the new Clause. Having it in mind he has added subsection (3), which provides that they cannot get back more than they gain. Obviously, in putting in that subsection, he has in mind the possibility that a local authority would ask for more than a fair share of the loan or advance when only a part of the property is alienated.
That is the first point again, but another aspect of it, and it could be rather serious if a unitary grant were given for the building of a garden. I


am not sure whether or not, under the drafting of the Clause, that would take place. We have had little time to consider the drafting. But if there were a unitary grant for the building of a garden, and a part of the garden were then sold, a local authority might feel rather bruised and injured, and might demand back an unfair proportion of the advance it had made. Here again, I cannot see what would be the practical answer under the provisions of the Clause.
I have not suggested any solution to the difficulties, but I hope that my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the points that have been made between now and the further proceedings of the Bill in another place, to see whether those difficulties can be met.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The proposed new Clause and the Amendment reflect the genuine worry which the Committee has that the Bill might be regarded as being of benefit to a certain class of the community. They attempt to overcome any possibility of property "spivs" and developers getting hold of property of historic value and making an unwarranted profit out of it at the expense of the public and the ratepayers.
Of the two, I prefer the new Clause. The Amendment has the great disadvantage of attempting to assess the increased value accruing to a property by virtue of the grant. During our discussion the difficulties attendant upon the assessment of such a value have been emphasised. Much as I respect the power and sagacity of district valuers, I regard it as almost impossible to estimate how much a property has increased in value, especially in these times of rapidly rising land values. It is difficult to say whether the £10,000 worth of expenditure on the roof has increased the value of a house by £7,000, £8,000 or any other figure. It would be placing a very unreasonable burden upon the district valuer to ask him to assess the increased value. Further, the Amendment refers only to sales, whereas the Clause includes leases, and contains more general powers of enforcement.
My hon. Friend has excluded gifts and undue hardship, but one of the difficulties which arise is caused by the fact

that the Clause provides no method of judging the amount which should be recovered. There is a permissive right of the local authority to recover a certain sum, but it is difficult to determine exactly what that sum should be. It is true that the owner, who benefits from the grant, knows when he goes into the business that there is a possibility of his being required, later on, to pay back a proportion of that grant, so that the position is not as unfair as it would seem, prima facie, from the Amendment, but there is a difficulty in assessing the amount which should be repaid. Further, the Clause provides no machinery for appeal.
A grant made by a local authority has to have my right hon. Friend's approval, but as I understand the Clause it contains no provision for my right hon. Friend's Department saying, "We think that a reasonable sum to be recovered from the borrower or the beneficiary would be £x and not £y." I put this point to my hon. Friend because the matter is not entirely in the hands of local authorities. They have to obtain the grant from my right hon. Friend, ab initio, and it is therefore not unreasonable that they should consult him when there is any question or doubt about the reasonableness of a local authority's demand for repayment.
Subject to these points, however, I have no hesitation in supporting the new Clause. It makes the Bill much fairer in its operation, and removes any doubt from the minds of the public that the Bill may be used for improper purposes by developers and other persons who are interested not in the property but merely in securing some financial advantage at the expense of the ratepayers.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has mentioned that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has unfortunately been called away and has not been able to be here this morning. That is why my contemptible self has been occupying this position on the Opposition Front Bench. But I have been very carefully briefed—as anybody who knows my hon. and learned Friend can well believe—about what I am to say on the subject before us. My hon. and learned Friend naturally feels that his Amendment is a good one. I


do not share the doubts expressed about the burden that would be placed upon the district valuer. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that if their noses are put to the quarry district valuers will solve the problem. But my hon. and learned Friend would not want to be obstructive for a moment. He recognises that the substantial point has been met.
It is not a question of thinking in terms of stately homes, and large grants of £10,000 or £20,000. The sort of property that is likely to receive a grant from a local authority is small property, and in most cases the grant will be small. It is often just that small property which will be the more marketable. I do not think that we need worry about Castle Howard being sold to somebody at an enormous profit. To have to live in Castle Howard is not outdoor relief but indoor relief. It is almost a condition of a large grant that the person concerned should live in the place and keep it going. The problem with which we are here concerned is that of the small house which requires the removal of dry rot, re-pointing or repair of some kind. When the work has been done to such a property it is often transformed into a very attractive building, which someone may well like to live in.
In those cases it is highly desirable that there should be some means of getting back public money, even if it has been taken in good faith. At the time of receiving the grant the person concerned may not realise that he may later want to sell, or what a good price he will get. Somebody may come along who wants the house very much, and he may offer an unexpectedly high price. The person who received the grant may find himself getting a useful nest egg, which he did not expect to receive at the time he received the grant.
We must not think entirely of speculators and "spivs." My hon. and learned Friend and I feel that the new Clause is a reasonable compromise to meet the points made in Committee, and we have no hesitation in supporting it.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that no one wants to forget that the purpose of the Bill is to encourage local authorities to make grants and to encourage owners

to apply for them. Therefore, we should bear in mind at every stage that this Measure should simplify and not complicate the law. I believe that there was a feeling at one stage—certainly as far as I was concerned—that it might not be necessary, because many of the loans will be small, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, to have this power at all. However, there is no doubt that there was a very strong feeling on both sides—the case was very forcibly put by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—that there ought to be some safeguard against the abuse by an owner of the powers in the Bill. That is really the object of this Clause.
The proposal in the Clause put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering certainly formed a basis on which we were able to have discussions. I think that the new Clause put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is adequate to meet the wishes expressed on both sides of the House on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) asked what the position would be if the work were done without the consent of the owner. I do not think that that could possible apply under the Bill. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there has to be a grant or a loan, which, of course, need not be accepted if it is not wanted. What I think may happen—and this may be the matter which most concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—is that the owner may be pressed to undertake the work by the local authority because it wants in the interests of local amenity to see the work of restoration carried out. The local authority may encourage the owner to do work which, in a sense, does not contribute to the economic planning of the property. We should not, therefore, in those circumstances want to see the local authority recovering the whole grant.
I feel that the provision which enables the local authority to recover, if it thinks fit—this is simply an enabling power—in whole or in part will enable us to ensure that money is recovered only when there is really a feeling that something has been taken from the public and when an unreasonable profit has been made on a sale within a period of three years.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend said if it were, more or less, pressed on the owner. As I see it, this provision to recover being permissive, the owner could perfectly well say to the local authority, "If you force me to do this you must bind yourself not to recover more than £x in so many years".

Mr. Rippon: I have no doubt that these things could be dealt with by agreement. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) is right, that if the local authority were exercising great pressure the owner could ask for an undertaking that it would not use the powers under the Act.
This is a matter where, I think, we all ought to join with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in saying that we trust the local authorities. It is a matter entirely within their competence. They will know the people with whom they are dealing and the purposes for which they have made the grant. I believe that they can be left to deal fairly with the people in their own areas. This is a very different case from the other in which they were asked to exercise judgment on matters not wholly within their competence, and they would welcome outside assistance. I think that it would be wrong to fetter their discretion and judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) raised, as he always does, some interesting legal points out of his vast experience of these matters. I do not share—at any rate, not wholly—his views about valuation. I think that it would really have been a great difficulty and discouragement to owners if we had had provisions calling for a valuation by the district valuer before and after grants were made. Valuation, I would say, is an art and not a science. My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of the Lands Tribunal. I, too, have had a little experience of it in my time. I always had the feeling that the valuers were very sound on a point of law, but that in the last resort the lawyers did the valuation. However, that is as it may be.
My hon. Friend raised a very interesting point on the subject of the capital gains tax. Here I would say that I am sure that we are all anxious not to give

the impression that the Bill, if it becomes law, will be a complicated Measure and that people who apply for grants should have any reason to fear that the local authorities will deal with them in any way harshly or unfairly. I undertake to consider carefully the points made in the course of the debate.

Mr. Ede: I regard the debate on this new Clause as being held in the realm of unreality. I heard the figure of £10,000 mentioned as being the amount of a grant likely to be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act. Quite frankly, I do not expect that any grant of that amount will be made. I think that when figures of that kind come into the calculation it ought to be understood that it is a matter for the Historic Buildings Council, which has very expert advice at its disposal.
Speaking as one who has been a member of the Council from its inception, I can say that we have on several occasions been perturbed regarding what might happen, but so far there has not been a single case where a building for which a grant has been made has been sold by the owner subsequent to the grant being made. It has sometimes happened that in the course of the negotiations with the Historic Buildings Council a person has appeared who is willing to buy the building before the grant is mentioned. On some of those occasions a grant has been made to the purchaser, but in no case has a grant been made and then a sale effected.
Quite frankly, the Act of 1953 makes no provision with regard to what is to happen in these circumstances. As far as I know, the Historic Buildings Council has no power to recover any grant which it has made. We have on occasion regarded that as a weakness in our position, and I think it is a good thing that something should be put into the Bill to meet the circumstances that might arise in the case of a local authority loan. However, I should be surprised if many loans for more than £800 or £900 are made under the provisions of the Bill. To talk in terms of £10,000, with the possibility that £4,000 has been added to the value of the house, is outside the realm of reality in regard to the Bill.
In as much as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering


(Mr. Mitchison) is satisfied with the new Clause now before the House, I have much pleasure in supporting it and welcoming it on the understanding that while one cannot control what happens under Clause 1 (1, a) of the Bill, because as I understand it if a local authority is so minded as to make a grant of £10,000 under that Clause it can do so—

Mr. MacColl: Subject to loan sanction.

Mr. Rippon: Not necessarily subject to loan sanction. The local authority would need loan sanction if it needed to borrow the money but if it did it out of revenue it would be all right.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman and I have had plenty of local government experience in Surrey, and there are plenty of ways of avoiding loan sanction. One could, for instance, mortgage the sewage plant, and the Ministry would have no power to deal with one. There are plenty of ways round that.
I hope that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, if approached under Clause 1 (1, b) for sanction to anything in the neighbourhood of £10,000, unless it be a grant by a substantial county or county borough council, would say that the appropriate thing to do would be to refer the matter to the Historic Buildings Council.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I ask leave to speak again to answer what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) because it was my figure of £10,000 to which he referred. I took £10,000 only as a convenient round figure. I might easily have taken £1,000. The magnitude of the sum was quite irrelevant to what I was saying.
The point I was making was amply borne out by what the Parliamentary Secretary said. It was that a loan or grant in this case might not be represented in 100 per cent. enhancement of the sale price. When he answered the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there would be cases where a local authority proposed to give a grant or loan to carry out some work which was mainly of interest to the amenity of the neighbourhood and it would not be

represented in the selling price of the property.
The fact that I mentioned £10,000 was that in speaking one seizes on a figure. I doubt, however, whether this is totally unrealistic, because in the Bill we are legislating for county councils as well as for smaller bodies. Although I appreciate that the L.C.C. is not included in the Bill, all the other big county councils are included. When dealing with Lancashire County Council, for instance, a grant of £10,000 would not be out of the way if it thought that it had a property in the county which was sufficiently good.
We are dealing with properties which mainly are already on the Section 30 lists and which are characteristically, although not always, substantial properties. The right hon. Member knows this better than anyone, because he has had so much to do with them. I think that the point cannot be brushed aside quite so lightly as he tried to do it. With respect to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I am not quite persuaded by his request that we should treat this matter lightly and broadly. I do not see the answer to the argument I put forward.
My hon. Friend said, "Let us trust local authorities. They will not ask for the money back unless that is reasonable". I wonder whether that is so. I am not accusing them of being unreasonable, but they will approach this matter by looking at the Statute. They may very well feel that they have a public duty laid upon them to recover the money if the property is sold within three years. They might approach the matter by analogy to the procedure on another grant with which they are familiar, the improvement grant. In that case they have a discretion and they can mitigate.
I think that I am right in saying, but I expect that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. McColl) is more up to date in his knowledge about it, that prima facie a local authority recovers the appropriate proportion of an improvement grant when the property is sold within less than a period of years specified in the Act and it mitigates when it thinks that there are special circumstances.

Mr. Channon: "Special reasons"?

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has been dealing with a Bill which refers to "special reasons", but in this case we are not concerned with the motoring world.
I believe this to be the current practice of local authorities in the kind of grant with which they are primarily concerned, the improvement grant. I am very much afraid that unless they are given strong guidance they will approach this question in the same way and ask for the money back unless they feel that there are special reasons against that.
I repeat the request I made and I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter again, because it is a substantial point and we may be a little surprised by what happens. It could perhaps be dealt with by circular or in some other way, but I should prefer, if it can be done in another place, to put some guidance into the Bill. I think that could be done simply by the use of some such phrase as, "in special circumstances if they think fit". Something of that kind would show that local authorities have not a prima facie public duty to call the money back because there had been a sale.
There was a phrase used by the Parliamentary Secretary which, I think, confirmed the possible importance of what I said about the Finance Bill, 1962. He mentioned that there were a number of cases in which a purchaser—he meant a recent purchaser—was given a grant from the Historical Buildings Council. Here there will be a number of cases in which a purchaser buys because he has had informal discussions with local authorities. They say, "This is a building we have had our eye on for some time. It is getting into a very bad state. If you buy it we shall almost certainly be prepared to give a grant." So there will be the giving of a grant following very closely on the purchase in some cases.
If the sale is within three years of the giving of the grant, it may well be within three years of the purchase of the property. The question of the capital gains tax and repayment of grant will need to be brought into harmony. I think that both points I made in my speech have some substance and ought to be looked

at seriously between now and the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend will bear in mind that I gave him assurances on those points.

Mr. Bell: With respect, my hon. Friend gave assurance on the second, but not on the first point. I should like to have it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.)

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3 at the end to insert:
(3) A local authority may require as a condition of the making by them of a contribution under this section by way of grant towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance or upkeep of any property that the person to whom the grant is made shall enter into an agreement with them for the purpose of enabling the public to have access to the property or part thereof during such period and at such times as the agreement may provide.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if we discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
(3) A contribution under this section may be made subject to conditions imposed by the local authority for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property to which the contribution relates and of giving public notice of such right of access.

Mr. Channon: This Amendment, like the new Clause we have been discussing, is designed to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I hope that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who substitutes today for the hon. and learned Member—his father figure—will be able to treat this Amendment in the same spirit.
The hon. and learned Member thought that it would be wrong if guidance given to local authorities made them feel that they had to impose conditions of access on owners of houses. The Amendment moved in Committee, which was in similar terms to the one which you, Mr. Speaker, have said we may discuss with this Amendment, was also permissive. At an early stage of the Bill it was felt that local authorities could impose any conditions they thought fit whether we


wrote something into the Bill or not. However that may be, everyone will feel that there might be public access which would be inappropriate and that is why these powers should be made permissive.
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we do not want to give the impression that we are dealing with some property such as Castle Howard. This is designed to deal with small buildings, sometimes with houses whose facades are their only interesting features. In such cases it would seem rather stupid that there should he public access to the inside of the house. There will be cases where it would be inappropriate to have access to the interior.
The Amendment allows a local authority to enter into an agreement enabling the authority to recover the amount of the grant in the event of a breach of that agreement. There was general agreement in the Standing Committee that it was right that public access should ordinarily be secured if a grant was made from public funds, although, as I have said, there will be exceptions.
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering provides that a contribution may be made subject to conditions to be imposed by the local authority. That raises the difficult question of penalties and enforcements. I do not know how one could enforce such a condition, and I prefer that the owner and the authority should enter into an agreement, so that there is a clear breach of contract if the access conditions are not complied with.
Conditions of access would, if imposed, vary widely according to the type of house and the circumstances of the case. My Amendment does not compel an authority to make such a condition, nor does it lay down the sort of condition that a local authority ought to impose. I hope that hon. Members will see the Amendment as an attempt to meet what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, and agree that, in appropriate cases, owner and council may enter into an agreement, subject to suitable conditions.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is another Amendment that improves the Bill. It contains what have been described as

permissive powers as to access. I do not think that a local authority will often require to impose such conditions because, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, the property concerned is much more likely to be a small property—the single house. It is right to make the imposing of access conditions permissive; if the owner does not wish to avail himself of the money he does not need to have people going through his house. The Amendment makes sure that there is no loophole for people to get money and give nothing in return.

Mr. MacColl: This rather prosaic Amendment marks the climax of a very dramatic passage in the Standing Committee, when the whole nation was thrilled at the idea of seeing the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in his bath [HON. MEMBERS: "He's not here."] Then that may well be where he is; I do not know his habits as well as do hon. Members opposite.
The Amendment does not necessarily mean that people will have a right to burst into a person's house regardless of privacy. The practice of the Historic Buildings Council when arranging these things is to vary the degree of accessibility according to the nature of the house and the amount of public interest there is in it. It is only reasonable that if ratepayer's money is to be spent on a private house of some architectural or historic interest, the public should have the right to see what that matter of public interest is. Whether visiting is by appointment, or on certain days of the week, or at certain times of the day, is a matter for arrangement.
Again, as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) hinted, I have been briefed on this matter. I am authorised to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), having produced several Amendments on this matter, is prepared to agree that this Amendment represents a praiseworthy attempt to meet him.

Mr. Rippon: For the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. It may be that even if the Amendment were not included in the Bill, local authorities would have power to enter into an agreement of the


kind suggested. I believe that the Historic Buildings Council has dealt with such matters by letter, which is by far the best way of doing it. It might not be appropriate in every case, but it is useful that the Bill should itself indicate to local authorities that, in certain cases, it will be appropriate for them to enter into this kind of agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a fortunate private Member who has an opportunity of getting his Bill as far as the Third Reading, and I should like to thank the whole House for its sympathetic treatment of this modest Measure. My prime thanks, of course, are due to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and to his advisers for their constant help and advice. I am also very grateful to all members of the Standing Committee who gave the Bill such a thorough examination and friendly reception. We would all agree, I am sure, that the work of that Committee has resulted in the Bill being improved.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has told me that he is prevented from attending today because of a long-standing engagement, has worked exhaustively on this Bill, and most of our debates today have resulted from his energy in that respect. I am grateful to him. I am sure, too, that all members of the Standing Committee would wish me to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) for the way in which he presided over our deliberations.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to remove uncertainties about the law relating to historic buildings, and to allow local authorities to make contributions towards their preservation. It is indisputable that many fine properties fall into disrepair, and there are insufficient funds in the hands of the Historic Buildings Council to do the necessary work. I should have said earlier that the Report of the Council refers to the work of local authorities in this sphere.
There will always be some local authorities with little interest in giving the grants envisaged in this Measure, but I hope that there will be others who, in happy contrast, are keen and anxious to help. I hope that some of the small authorities—urban district councils and rural district councils, far example—who have this power given to them for the first time, will prove themselves keen to save some of our buildings of architectural and historic interest in their own areas. There will always be buildings of particularly local interest, and perhaps the local authorities concerned will show anxiety to preserve them.
My own personal view is that Clause 1, as drafted, is about right—I have been through it at some length this morning—but I think that the whale House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for indicating that it will be administered as liberally as possible. I hope that I express his views accurately when I say that, in the exceptional case, a local authority will have to put forward some really outrageous grant proposal before the Minister refuses to consent to it giving a grant to a house that does not appear on the statutory list, as referred to in Clause 1 (1, b). Clause 1 (1, a) provides that if the building is on the statutory list it is prima facie an indication that it is worth preserving, so that my Bill naturally covers it.
At the present moment, county and borough councils already have statutory power to deal with this problem although, as I said on Second Reading, I think that some of them do not realise that those powers exist. They in fact have powers under existing legislation to make these grants towards the maintaining and preserving of ancient monuments. Under existing legislation the provisions are complicated and obscure and give rise to difficulties because of all sorts of things, such as reference to the Ancient Monuments Board.
It has been thought, notably by the Estimates Committee, that there is great need for local authorities further to interest themselves in this matter. The Historic Buildings Council may be able to concern itself with buildings that are outstanding, but many people believe that there are places of great interest


which would not qualify as being "outstanding" but which should be thought of as being of great historic interest. Therefore, up to the present, there has been a gap in our law and I hope that my modest Bill will go a small way towards bridging it.
I was pleased to see a short leader in Country Life last week indicating that people interested in this subject approved of the Bill. The Measure is a small and modest step to preserve a few more of our ancient buildings and, as the Gowers Report pointed out, it will help to save our great national heritage. I cannot pretend, even with the Amendments that have been made, that it will go all the way towards doing that, but I think the whole House, if it decides to give the Bill its Third Reading, will be taking a small but significant step along the road towards preserving the amenities of our fine buildings, and that should be the interest and care of every hon. Member.

2.2 p.m.

Sir H. Kerr: On Second Reading, I complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and expressed the hope that, as the youngest hon. Member in the House, he would, many, many years from now, in a ripe and rubicund middle age, be able to look back at this Bill as being one of the happiest moments he spent in Parliament.
As we are reaching the completion of the Bill's Third Reading, may I now extend his expectation of life a little further? I wish to imagine him, in the autumn of the year 2,000, in a tall and panelled library, turning the pages of his scrap book which is filled with photographs and newspaper cuttings. I like to imagine my hon. Friend surrounded by a veritable hedge of grandchildren. When one of them asks "Grandfather Paul, which was the happiest time of your life in Parliament?" my hon. Friend will be able to say "1st June, 1962, when my Bill received its Third Reading."

Mr. Channon: May I say that, even so, I will not have served in the House for anything like as long as some hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

Sir H. Kerr: The hon. Member for Southend, West is in the living form

an expression of the truth "Guinness is good for you." I was glad that my hon. Friend was able to include in his Bill the Clause dealing with gardens. All of us who prize and treasure the history and beauties of' our land realise that so often in the past the garden was placed like a frame around a picture and was very much a part of a house.
I like to think of the terraces of some of our great houses, like Brandshill, from which, on a May or June evening, come the sounds of madrigals by Byrd or Tallis, or of the dramatic arrival of an emissary arriving from London to say that Lord Burleigh's spies in Cadiz had seen a forest of masts which the Spaniards called "the enterprise of England".
I like to think of the eighteenth century types of garden which will now be preserved and of the young man back from a grand tour of the Continent and planning his garden with "Capability" Brown, with a temple dedicated to the mures, or a statue found on a Tuscan hillside. Today is the beginning of a good movement; the appreciation of the arts in England.
I would like to recall an enchanting story told about that great wit and hostess, Madame de Deffard, in the eighteenth century, having listened to a story told by the Bishop of Paris; the story told of how, after he was beheaded, St. Denis was able to put his head under his arm and walk for three miles. "Ah, Monseigneur," Madame de Deffard replied, "the first step is always the one that counts."
Today is the first step. On Second Reading, many hon. Members called attention to the unique advantages enjoyed by this country, derived from two main assets. They were, first and foremost, the fact that we have been lucky enough not to be invaded for a great period of time. Apart from the bombardments of the last war, the last time we saw war was when John Churchill and the troops of James II scattered the terrified West Country peasants at Sedgemoor. We also recall when Bonnie Prince Charlie was persuaded to turn back at the bridge at Melbourn and the long retreat began, ending in the charge of the clans at Culloden.
We have been able to maintain our treasures because we have been blessed


by the presence of a great number of collectors, men of taste. One thinks of the collection of Charles I, which was dispersed by Oliver Cromwell, or the collection of the Walpole family, which caught the greedy eyes of Catherine the Great of Russia. We must confess that up to now we have not cared sufficiently for our national treasures as much as have our neighbours across the Channel in Europe.
If one goes to Germany, and takes a seat in a concert hall in Hamburg, one learns with amazement that the town of Hamburg spends as much in one year on the arts as is spent on them for the whale of Britain. France is a superb example of patronage. If one goes to France one learns that the central and local authorities contribute great sums of money to the arts—at Versailles, for instance. In French embassies one finds, sustained by the munificence of the State, perfect examples of French life and culture.
These aspects are very important. Even when France was militarily defeated, when German tanks penetrated deep into its countryside and when the German long-range guns at Cape Gris Nez pointed across the Channel at their former allies, the prestige of France always survived in the sphere of the arts, because she had always concentrated on this aspect of her national life.
So I return to the points raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West. As the Bill has passed through its stages, it has given another opportunity to our local authorities to look after our national art treasures. The 1948 Act has never been fully implemented—the power given to local authorities to raise a 6d. rate for cultural purposes. I hope that my hon. Friend's Measure, which is now receiving its sanction, will encourage local authorities to use their powers more adequately than under the 1948 Act.
I also return to my picture of the hon. Member for Southend, West in his oak-panelled library in the yeas 2,000. I hope that as a result of this Measure his scrapbook will show the second half of the twentieth century as a period in which a move towards the preservation of our national treasures was begun so that the heritage of this island is maintained.

Perhaps an American tourist arriving from Idlewild Airport—probably, by that time, having made the journey in 20 minutes—to London Airport will find himself facing a London and a countryside built up with modern materials and in modern idiom, but giving, at the same time, as much pleasure as London and the countryside must have given in previous centuries.
I think of the Georgian squares and Regency terraces which delight everyone today and I hope that, as a result of the renewed interest in these matters which the Bill creates, the new roads we build will not discredit "Capability" Brown and that the planning of our modern cities and the articles used in their construction will give the same pleasure as did Bath or Dublin in the eighteenth century.
And so, when my hon. Friend is asked by one of his numerous grandchildren in the year 2,000 what gave him the most pleasure, he will be able to say that it was the Bill, which is shortly to become an Act. Perhaps with the slight privilege granted by age which permits us to lecture the young, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will be able to say, in the words of the Greek proverb, "Well begun is heartily done."

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Worsley: I should like to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and to express my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on promoting and steering this Bill through its various stages.
I thought that the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to the charming library scene must have caused a little alarm in the breast of my right hon. Friend—I beg pardon, my hon. Friend—the Member for Southend, West. It is all very well for an unmarried man to be threatened with children, but the prospect of grandchildren might cause him to step back from the brink altogether.
My hon. Friend has promoted and steered his Bill through the various stages with great deference to the different points of view put forward in various quarters, and the skill which he


as shown has perhaps made my slip of the tongue a moment ago not altogether so improbable for the future.
Before we part with the Bill I should like to say one or two things about it. My first comment is one which I raised on Second Reading. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary intervenes he will be able to clear up one matter and state the precise authorities that will be authorised to make the grants. What I particularly wish to know is whether the council of a non-county borough is specifically included in the Bill or not. The definition Clause talks about
a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district …
I think that it will often be the case that a non-county borough will wish to make this type of grant.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) today emphasised—and I am sure he is absolutely right—that this is not a matter of increasing the income of landowners. I think there is a great dead in what he says, because I do not believe that the use made of this Bill will apply so much to the type of stately home which has been mentioned from time to time by hon. Members. There are, of course, important houses to which it would be suitable and appropriate for a local authority to contribute, but the point surely is that we already have in the Historic Buildings Council machinery for helping that sort of house.
There may be room for an additional grant, and I think that will happen. There may be occasions when there is a combined effort involving some voluntary or local authority help and help from the Historic Buildings Council. Even so, I do not believe that the real value of this Bill will apply in that sort of case. After all, there are, in every locality, a number of buildings, which are of local importance but not of national outstanding importance. These buildings at the moment are completely outside the scope of the Historic Buildings Council. They are buildings which it would be improper for the Historic Buildings Council to try to help. They are, however, buildings which a prudent and far-sighted local authority might, and now can, help. This must apply

particularly in the areas of Britain which are less rich in stately homes and famous buildings of one sort and another.
I am thinking particularly of the industrial areas of the North. There are few buildings of national importance there. Lest I should be thought to be merely parochial in my interest, perhaps I can refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) earlier today when he talked about the ancient factories in his part of Gloucestershire. They are buildings which are manifestly not of outstanding national importance, yet in their local setting they are of great importance. That is why I feel that the value of this Bill is much more likely to be found in the local scene than in connection with buildings of outstanding national importance.
On Second Reading I referred to what I described as the "spiky" Victorian town hall. I was very sorry that in the subsequent debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), who has now unfortunately had to leave us, made some deplorable slighting references to Victorian buildings in general. I thought that such remarks, coming from a gentleman who is such a monument of the Victorian Law Courts and of this Victorian building, were deplorable. Strangely enough, he referred to a northern town hall in a slighting way. He said that when he was living in that town it had been burned to the ground and that subsequently nobody cared except that they could not see the clock any more. The curious thing is that in my constituency of Keighley this very thing has happened since I addressed the House on Second Reading. The principal building in the centre of the town has, indeed, been destroyed by fire, and the greatest sorrow for most people has been the absence of the clock, for which everybody looks expecting to see what the time is, even three or four weeks after the disaster.
A more timorous mortal than I might think that any remarks in favour of Victorian architecture were in some way damned by higher authority. I am not going to be put off by this apparent ill omen because I feel that there is in the towns of the industrial North a tremendous amount of this type of architecture which is essential to the character


of those towns, and that there is a great danger that with the present trend of central development—and a very excellent trend it is—we shall lose some of these fine Victorian buildings which give character to the centres of some of our towns.
I am glad to know that in many cases there is appreciation of these buildings locally. While I am straying a little wide, may I mention the town of Rochdale which has an exceptionally fine town hall and is, I understand, developing consciously round it, keeping it as the centrepiece to a very exciting redevelopment scheme.
It is not precisely town halls that this Bill will affect because clearly the town hall in most cases is the property of the local authority. It is the Victorian building which is not in the ownership of the local authority but which has a commanding position in the town which we shall find can be used by a forward-looking, intelligent and sympathetic authority through the machinery of this Bill. It is certainly my hope—and here I am echoing the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—that this may be the beginning of part of the gradual development of a greater appreciation of precisely the sort of setting which we have, not only in our famous cities, but in our industrial towns.
I should like to sound one note of warning. I wonder whether the lists of the Ministry include the finer, later buildings. I am talking particularly of Victorian buildings and perhaps later buildings as well. The hon. and learned Member for Billericay talked about the changing taste of the people. Is provision for this changing taste to be reflected in these lists? I think that is a matter of importance. It is important that we should be constantly looking in the years ahead at those lists to make sure that if there are buildings which at the current moment are regarded as of no importance but which are held to be so later on they can be added to the list. I should appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary would say a word or two about this, and if he would tell us whether buildings which are unfashionable at the moment will be listed. I know that his Department has not the

power or authority to say that they should necessarily be preserved. It is not only the buildings which are obviously ancient that should be listed but also buildings that are fine without necessarily being old. I am sure that this is this type of building that must be preserved in many areas.
I very much welcome the Bill. It is the sort of Bill that can either go by without very much action being taken or it can be used widely throughout the country in part of an endeavour to preserve and improve the amenities of this country. I hope that the latter will prove to be the case and that this Bill will be an important step in that direction.

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Hunter: I want briefly to support the Motion and to congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on introducing and guiding this Bill to its Third Reading. It is to the credit of this House that the youngest Member should show such an interest in the historic and cultural assets of this country. I feel that the Bill is wanted today, and that it will assist the local authorities in this matter.
I was very glad to see the Amendment accepted which preserved grounds and gardens of historic buildings, because those grounds and gardens may in certain circumstances be even more valuable than the buildings themselves. If one can imagine Hampton Court House being maintained but with the grounds and gardens not receiving the same treatment one can see how the great beauty and attraction of Hampton Count Palace would suffer. I feel, therefore, that we have strengthened the Bill.
The Bill gives a great chance to local authorities. I do not think that there is any other country in the world that had finer buildings than those of the Elizabethan and Tudor period or the Middle Ages. These historic buildings enable us to record the history and the social life of this country. The Bill will give local authorities the opportunity of preserving the historic cultural assets of this country which are so important to the nation. It therefore gives me much pleasure to support the Third Reading.

2.25 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on this excellent Bill. I am reminded of a previous occasion when he first came to the House and made a very brilliant speech on Cyprus. I can only say that the skill with which he made that speech has been applied in the course of this Bill. I think that he has met our wishes at every stage and that in so doing he has improved the Bill very considerably.
By this small but important Measure we shall be able to preserve many buildings which, although of historic interest, have not, up to now, been able to benefit from any grant from a public body or authority. The great danger of the Bill not receiving popular support was mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who thought that it might be regarded as an attempt to subsidise a certain type of person.
I am sure that that has been demolished in two ways, first, by the provision put in for the repayment of loans under various conditions which local authorities are able to impose, and, secondly, by the appropriate condition of access which has also been introduced into the Bill. With these two safeguards, I do not think that anyone can suggest that the Bill will benefit the individual to the same extent that it will benefit the community and our heritage in the preservation of these buildings.
As I see it, the Bill fills a very real gap. Large and important buildings and historic monuments have been able to benefit by other means, but the small but equally important and interesting building has escaped any form of financial aid from public authorities. I was very interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say—I think I heard him right—that any application which was made by a local authority would be very reasonably considered.
I am glad that we have been able to write into the Bill some form of check by the central authority. I believe that it has at its disposal the technical experts who are so necessary before any grant is made for some of these ancient buildings. It is well known that when one starts to make a small alteration or improvement on these buildings, it

may be found that there is an enormous amount of dry rot and that the amount one intended to spend is very greatly exceeded. Now a local authority will be compelled to go to the Ministry to get its advice, and I know that the Ministry will give every possible assistance to the local authority from the knowledge which it has been able to accumulate over many years.
I notice that the Bill will apparently apply to almost any article of historic interest, even, I understand, to buses. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said earlier that it was extremely comprehensive. I have an interest in this, because we have a very fine museum in my constituency and I have seen how very much public pleasure can be given by a museum which preserves things of that kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) mentioned Victorian buildings. This is very relevant. If we plan to preserve buildings we have to have a forward-looking atttitude because although there may be people who dislike Victorian architecture now, if we do not preserve some of it there will be nothing for posterity to enjoy. I believe that the Bill will help in the case of isolated individual small properties, and in preserving some of the Georgian houses and Victorian monuments which up to the present have not been helped in any way. I am sure that this will result in the smaller type of building being preserved for all time.
It was interested in the question of extending the Bill in respect of gardens and I am sure that the House will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) for the service which he has given in introducing that Amendment. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said. If there is a property with a garden, we shall be able to give a small grant to the building and extend that to the garden, thereby preserving what may be the most important and attractive part of the whole property.
I hope that the local authorities will, if the Bill becomes law, take the opportunity under its provisions of ensuring that buildings of historic interest both locally and nationally are preserved with


their help. In this way, thanks to this very important Measure which my hon. Friend has introduced, we shall be able to preserve for all time many historic monuments and buildings which posterity may enjoy.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Britain, and particularly England, is not a museum. It is the home of a living and developing people who have a great history and who, with a bit of luck, may have a tremendous future. It would be wrong for me at this stage to indicate which is the quickest way to secure the latter end.
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the courtesy and ability with which he has conducted the Bill through the House. Although our discussions have been long and detailed, we may now finish with the Bill feeling that the public interest has been vindicated in it.
It is important that we should realise that our nation's success depends upon having a close-knit community in which people of every class have an active part in the life of the community. Sir Charles Trevelyan said that, if the nobility of France had played cricket with their peasants, their chateaux would never have been burned down.
That is one of the clearest examples of the way in which our national characteristic has enabled us to preserve a sense of unity through the ages. There have been times when it has been difficult to maintain that sense of unity, and I hope that this Measure will be one of the ways by which the present generation will be enabled to realise the circumstances in which previous generations lived and the way in which the country has been developed.
I am not much interested in the preservation of great houses in which nobody has ever eaten a hot dinner. I see too many of them, and I marvel that they were ever allowed to remain. I have no great admiration for Vanbrugh. I think that to live in a Vanbrugh house must be to condemn oneself to a living death. I would as soon go to the other place.
The local authorities have in the Bill an opportunity of realising this sense of community and preserving it for coming generations in circumstances that will

enable it steadily to adapt itself to the changing requirements of times and seasons. It will be a great pity if the Bill is used merely to resist necessary improvements on the ground that we have to preserve something just because it is old. As has been said several times today, I arm the only person among those at present in the Chamber who can really say that with sincerity. Antiquity has no value unless it has a reality in the life of the community in which it happens to be stranded, even if not preserved.
I hope that the local authorities will try to use the Bill so that the history of the place for which they are responsible will be a living thing, so that children in the streets and in the schools will be able to feel that about them are the places where men, women and children lived, fought and acted in the great days of our country's history. It is shocking sometimes to see the way in which people are quite rootless because they have never taken the trouble to get grounded into the place in which they live, carry on their business, or, perhaps, merely sleep at night prior to catching an early train in the morning to go back to some city with which they have little connection.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government will have to deal with those buildings which have not yet been listed When they attract local interest and a desire to see them properly treated and preserved. I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached that matter. I am sure that he will see that sufficient attention is given to the wish of the local authority itself. The mere fact that a body of people elected for sanitary purposes has been persuaded to give some thought to the subject should in itself be a recommendation not to be lightly ignored by the Minister. If we can be assured, as we have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary this morning, that their views will be fairly and consciously considered by the Ministry, it will be possible to use the Bill for the improvement of the social unity of towns and districts in this country.
I particularly welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) about the preservation, on occasion, of some of the reminders of the past industry of a district. It is a


matter of great regret to us on the Historic Buildings Council that, when the last of the weaver's cottages of Spitalfields were under consideration, we were unable to preserve any of them, for they showed something not only of the industry but also of the great liberal tradition of the past. Could a couple of those cottages have been retained in a place which would become an open space, they would have been of great value in the social history of that district and would have enabled many people to get come conception of the way in which their ancestors lived and behaved in previous ages.

2.39 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I join the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sorry that he passed such strictures on Sir John Vanbrugh's work. We have an example of it in Bristol. The stables were turned into a police station and the house is to become a school of architecture.
This is a very modest Bill and, unless it is liberally interpreted by those who will be responsible for its operation, its effect will be very modest. But if local authorities interpret the spirit as well as the letter of the law which we are hoping to make, it will have some beneficial effect.
I am rather doubtful about the loan provisions which were written in during the Committee stage. I feel that owners will be a little hesitant in mortgaging themselves to the local authority and, perhaps, to have just another burden hanging over their heads. Surely a straight, once-and-for-all grant would be much better. There is another way in which local authorities can help under the Bill, and that is by the remission of rates. Even if they cannot do that as a straight action, they could make an annual grant equal to the rates. That seems to me an easy way to make a steady contribution to the upkeep of any building, large or small. I agree with what the right hon. Member for South Shields said about great houses. Of course, they must be preserved, but they are covered by other Measure's. This Bill, when, as I hope, it becomes an Act, will deal with smaller places.
We have heard a certain amount of discussion about the way in which the

Minister will be able to control the operation of this Measure, and we were told that the bowler-hatted inspectors were a good thing, on the one hand, and that the bearded antiquaries, on the other, could help. I have had my fill of both sorts visiting my own house in the country, and I sometimes get heartily sick of the flood of advice which I get. I hope that a happy balance will be found by my right hon. Friend when giving his help and advice.
Let no one think that, if we pass the Bill, people will be enabled to live in comfort and luxury in grand houses because of what it does. I think that no one in this day and age lives in comfort and luxury in any ancient house. It just is not possible. What we have to try to do is to persuade as many people as possible to go on living in discomfort in these buildings. I am sure that it would not be the will of the House as a whole merely to preserve buildings as buildings. It would not be worth while to say that every historic building should be preserved for ever, if that could happen by magic, if all the people and life which goes on around them were removed. I am not particularly interested in museum houses.
I am glad that the Bill leaves the matter of public access as one for special arrangement between the person who benefits and the local authority which makes the contribution. I see the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) looking at me with some amusement. He talked about historic bathroom ceilings, and so on. The only result of his reference to that matter in Committee is that a great many people have wanted to see my most unhistoric bathroom. This has been very inconvenient for me and extremely disappointing for them. I am glad that this business of public access, which should be reasonable, is left to the individual concerned and the local authority to agree between themselves.
I should like once again to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on introducing the Bill and to say that I heartily support its Third Reading.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I should not like the House to part with the Bill without my having the opportunity of saying a few words and, in particular, of adding my


congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the skill, consideration and ability with which he has piloted it through its various stages. I listened to a great deal of the Second Reading debate and I have read the whole of the proceedings in Committee. I cordially congratulate the hon. Member on his efforts and commend the Bill to hon. Members.
I, too, sometimes hear criticisms that, in our propaganda to encourage the tourist trade, too much emphasis is placed on our architectural monuments of national interest and similar picturesque attractions. I do not believe that that criticism is altogether well founded. I do not regard proper concern for the maintenance and repair of buildings of historic and architectural interest as being in any way a sign of national decadence. On the contrary, I think that such concern is a worthy and necessary activity of any civilised society, particularly one such as ours, which is so rich in a variety of historic monuments of so many kinds which go back through the ages. Nor do I think that concern for the historic treasures of our past and a proper regard for our national heritage are in any way inconsistent with an economic policy of industrial expansion. At the same time, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that in considering the preservation of any monument we must have a sense of proportion. I do not believe in preservation merely for its own sake. As we have heard, we must have regard to grouping, to community interest and to the sense of continuity.
I suppose that nothing has produced such a unique appeal to the people of this country as the recent consecration of the new Coventry Cathedral in juxtaposition to the ruins of the Coventry Cathedral of the Middle Ages, which will, no doubt, be preserved for all time. Here is an example, perhaps unique—certainly modern and certainly typical—of the grouping of an old building of great antiquity and great historic interest with something supremely modern and new. This goes to encourage, enhance and inspire us with a sense of the continuity of our national history and heritage.
I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that I have for a long time been pleading for greater co-ordination of effort on the part of all concerned with the preservation of ancient monuments and buildings of architectural and historic interest. I have been urging that there should be more co-ordination between the Treasury, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and other bodies concerned with this task. I am therefore particularly grateful that, by the Bill, local authorities will be brought into this activity, and I rejoice that, as a result of the Bill, responsibility in this activity will be widened. I am sure that, with the notable example which has been so obvious in recent years by the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and such organisations as the Historic Buildings Council for England, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields sits, their activities will now pervade the interests and activities of local authorities and will in that way provide, I hope, a greater measure of co-ordination so that there may be a combined and united effort in achieving the purpose which we all wish to achieve.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: We have been doing our best during the passage of the Bill to help the preservation of the landmarks of our history in a way in which hon. Members on both sides have wished. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is in good compay in his appreciation of the past. Disraeli wrote—and I think that his words are still apposite—
Men moralise among ruins, or, in the throng and tumult of successful cities, recall past visions of urban desolation for prophetic warning. London is a modern Babylon; Paris has aped imperial Rome. and may share its catastrophe … Damascus … had municipal rights in the days when God conversed with Abraham.
That, surprisingly enough, was even before the time of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
Disraeli went on:
As yet the disciples of Progress have not been able exactly to match this instance of Damascus, but it is said that they have great faith in the future of Birkenhead.
The buildings which we are seeking by the Bill to preserve are not as spectacular


as those referred to by Disraeli. The ruins of Damascus or those of imperial Rome, if they existed in this country, would, I think, be listed buildings and might even come under the auspices of the Historic Buildings Council; but it may well be that this Bill will benefit some buildings in Birkenhead, new when Disraeli wrote, but now sadly blackened and in need of preservation.
I think that some of the less glamorous early remains of the industrial North, in Birkenhead, South Shields, and Widnes, are only one example of the sort of buildings which may be assisted under the Bill and which might not have been assisted before. Hon. Members will have seen the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board, which was published this week, and which indicated that there was grave danger of the destruction of some of the important early industrial monuments. This was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley). These are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, but in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government we are doing something to help by listing those monuments where they are buildings.
The Bill will enable local authorities to make grants towards the repair or maintenance of some of these monuments provided they are buildings. I think the definition of "building" is rather wide in this Bill. It includes all sorts of constructions and erections, though I doubt whether they will ever include the Clapham omnibus or movable machinery.
It may be helpful if I briefly go through the changes which we have made to the Bill since Second Reading. We have had very good discussions since then, and I think that we all feel that the Bill has been much improved. It does, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, cover non-county boroughs, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) indicated.
The power in Clause 1 (1, a) to contribute in respect of listed buildings was extended to those in the vicinity of the area of the local authority. Some hon. Members thought that this did not go wide enough and that a building quite

remote from the town might have some association with it. There is really no satisfactory alternative to the words "in the vicinity" that we can find, and they have precedents in the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913. No similar extension of the powers in Clause 1 (1, b), was proposed because buildings not already included in the Section 30 list can hardly be of more than local interest. A building which might have been listed, but is not, for some reason or another, can always be specially added to the list. I do not think we shall have difficulty in administering this Bill in practice.
I would assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields that it is our wish that this should be interpreted liberally. Where we are dealing with buildings of local interest the local authority would be a very good judge of these matters. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that we do have in mind that Victorian or even Edwardian buildings might come within this category. The principles for listing buildings of the nineteenth century have recently been reviewed. Special surveys of Victorian and Edwardian buildings have been carried out in many provincial cities. We are also undertaking research into the works of the chief architects of the time. There is no reason why we should not now move on from Vanbrugh. Many of these have been listed.
Power to contribute by way of loans, now in Clause 1 (2), was added in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) referred to this. I think that it is a very wide power and should cover interest-free loans, and it also allows the authority to waive repayment. I think this is a useful provision and does enable smaller local authorities to secure the preservation of useful buildings without necessarily throwing any more burdens—or any burden at all—on public funds.
We have discussed today's Amendments fully and I do not think that I need refer to them at any length. We have dealt with the question of gardens. We have dealt with the question of access. We have dealt with


the question which we will look into again in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said about the provision for the authority to recover part or all of the grant where the property changes hands within three years by way of sale or exchange, or by a lease for twenty-one years or more.
We have, with the aid of hon. Members on both sides of the House, extended the Bill in accordance as far as we can with everybody's wishes. We have given local authorities unprecedented powers, and they should be able to extend their activities in this field. There will, of course, be some matters in which further guidance by the Ministry may be necessary. We shall do this by circular when the Bill has become law, and we shall also, of course, give guidance in any particular cases.
The circular to local authorities will cover all the points which have been raised in consideration of the Bill at its various stages. As hon. Members will remember, these include advice to local authorities who wish to contribute to the upkeep of buildings outside their areas. It is desirable that they should consult the local planning authority. At the very least that consultation will avoid the danger of three or four local authorities contributing to one building.
The circular will also give some guidance on agreements to make access a condition of grant. This may not be necessary in every case. We shall also try to give some guidance on what sort of publicity should be given to these access agreements. This was a matter which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and was referred to in an Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
We did not think that it needed to be in the Bill, but we have accepted virtually that, in practice, this is the sort of thing on which we ought to give local authorities some guidance. We shall also remind the local authorities that delay in making grants in suitable cases may be extremely expensive and that they should take expert advice as early as possible.
We have drafted a Bill which will enable us to preserve buildings from the

earliest times up to at least the turn of the century. I fancy that the Bill, when it reaches the Statute Book, will outlive today's fashions and prejudices, to which references have been made. Some of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, at any rate—may well survive to see it invoked for the preservation of Osbert Lancaster's famous Stockbroker's Tudor, or—my own favourite—his Curzon Street Baroque. However that may be, I hope that the Bill, steered through all its stages by my hon. Friend and improved by suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, will make a valuable contribution to the preservation of our national heritage.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: The selection of a Private Member's Bill to try to get through the House is a matter of great skill and judgment. I have never yet had to do it. One difficulty is that if an hon. Member chooses a subject in which nobody is interested he loses his Bill because of indifference. If he chooses a subject in which many people are interested he loses his Bill because of the desire on the part of hon. Members to take part in the discussion on it. I quite appreciate that as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) looks at the clock he is beginning to wonder just at what point he will be choked with cream.
I do not want to take too much time by congratulating him on the Bill. I was moved by the picture which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) painted of the hon. Member for Southend, West among his grandchildren in his library. I was comforted by the thought that undoubtedly he would have had a grant from the local authority for his library and that I would therefore be able to be present, exercising my rights of access, to see this happy scene.
The hon. Member thanked those of us who were on the Standing Committee for having improved the Bill by Amendment. The real thing for which he should thank the Committee is not what they did to the Bill but for the mere fact that they were there at all. What really kills a Bill is when the Members of the Committee do not turn up.


Simply by being present hon. Members facilitated the passing of the Bill.
I hope that I am impervious to flattery, but I must admit that I have a soft spat for my child. Any expression of appreciation of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates puts me in a very good mood, because it is true that the Report did what a Report of a Select Committee should do—throw light on a rather obscure and confused subject, which many hon. Members have difficulty in following, and underline some points, many of which have been included in this Bill. The Select Committee considered the question of the repayment of loans and the question of limiting resale. This Bill applying to local authorities sets the way for some improvements which may be made later on in the case of the national administration.
One of the things which the Select Committee criticised was the overlapping and the slowness of listing and scheduling. I was not happy with what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said about the progress there has been in listing. It is still very slow. We are still waiting for the famous report of the working party, which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury from time to time tells us is just round the corner. It is rather shocking that we are still waiting for this business to be tidied up, because if the powers of the Bill are to be used it is extremely important for the Whole of this machinery to be streamlined.
It is true that the Bill will enable local authorities to help in regard to a variety of buildings, many of them not what most people think of as being matters of architectural interest, though, as has been pointed out before the word is "interest" and not "beauty". A local authority will be as entitled to help Robert Adam at his worst as it will be to help Vanbrugh at his best. Therefore, local authorities who want to preserve some Victorian horror will be quite entitled to do so within the terms of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) mentioned the public buildings of Rochdale. It so happens that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) was an the Select Committee on Estimates. He raised the question of

preserving the building from which the Rochdale pioneers launched the cooperative movement, If a local authority felt that it needed to do that, it would be well within the powers of the Bill if it did so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's circular when it comes out will be enthusiastic and warm to its subject and will encourage local authorities to get on with this work.
May I, in my turn, thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the promoter of the Bill for the patience and care with which they have dealt not only with me but with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because when my hon. and learned Friend has his interest aroused in a matter he has it aroused and there are no qualifications about it. I know that he is very satisfied with the way his proposals have been received and is most anxious that the Bill should go through. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(INTERPRETATION OF REFERENCES TO PRIVATE GAIN.)

3.4 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I beg to move, in page 1, line 26, at the end to insert:
(3) For the purposes of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section, where any payment falls to be made by way of a hiring charge for a gaming machine within the meaning of section seventeen of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, or for any equipment for holding a lottery or gaming at any entertainment, then, if, but only if, the amount of that charge falls to be determined wholly or partly by reference to, or to some part of, the amounts hazarded at lotteries or gaming by means of that or some other such machine or equipment, that payment shall be held to be an application of the stakes hazarded or proceeds of the entertainment, as the case may require, for purposes of private gain; and accordingly any reference in those provisions to expenses shall not include a reference to any such hiring charge falling to be so determined.


I had intended to go into some detail on the Amendment, but I feel that I must have some consideration for those who are interested in any business which may be following. On Second Reading some of my hon. Friends voiced criticisms with regard to possible loopholes which might exist if the Bill were not amended. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, in essence, that there might be individual gain under the cloak of the society for an individual who would be protected because essentially the society was not run for private gain but for the benefit of the members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) gave a specific instance of how that might arise when he drew attention to the fact that it was quite conceivable that the owner of a number of gaming machines might install them in a number of clubs, become a member of each of the clubs, and get his cut out of the profits of the machines by virtue of the fact that those machines were run for the benefit of the society as a whole. It was felt, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that for the Bill to be as watertight as it is possible for any Bill concerning lotteries and gaming to be, consideration should be given to the constructive suggestions made by my hon. Friends.
The Amendment points out that if a club has an arrangement with the supplier of a gaming machine whereby the supplier receives a proportion of the takings by way of hire, it might be held that he had supplied the machine for a purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole. Therefore, under subsection (1) of the Clause, the payment of a proportion of the proceeds to him is not to be held to be applied for purposes of private gain and, consequently, is lawful.
The Amendment makes it clear that it is lawful to pay the supplier of the machine a rent at a fixed rate not determined by reference to the takings. This is by no means dealt with satisfactorily by Section 17 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. The result of the Amendment will be, I hope, to put it beyond all doubt that it is lawful for a club to pay a fixed rental for the hire of the machine, but not a rental which is dependent upon the amount of takings.
The Amendment also deals similarly with any hiring charge which may be made for equipment which carries out any other of the activities dealt with in the statutory provisions listed in subsection (1)—for example, side-shows at a fête. A good analogy was given in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office when he referred to the hiring of a marquee for a garden party or some such similar function. I thank my hon. Friends for their constructive criticism which has necessitated the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): My advice to the House is to accept the Amendment. I should make it clear that this is my advice, because the point was first raised on Second Reading and I said that I would consider it. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and told him that it would seem that the Bill as it stood was adequate to deal with the situation which he had in mind. My hon. Friend persisted, however, and was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), and little by little—or, perhaps I should say, Eric by Eric—they managed to achieve their end and to get the Bill clarified in the way now proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood).
We should pay our tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Blackley for the persistence they have shown. They have demonstrated most clearly that one cannot take enough care in these matters of drafting, especially concerning the law relating to lotteries and gaming. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, am deeply grateful to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) and by the Minister that we cannot be too careful in any Bill which seeks to make amendments in the law relating to lotteries and gaming.
For many years, it has been recognised that this is a notoriously difficult part of the law with which to deal with absolute precision. Therefore, as this was a point which was not considered in any detail on Second Reading and


emerged as a point of substance only in Committee, it is important that before we finish with the Report stage, the House should be clear concerning this new provision that is now sought to be incorporated in the Bill.
I agree that in view of decisions which have been announced in the courts, it is necessary to deal with this matter. I should like the Minister to confirm that I am right in thinking that the effect of the Amendment will be to legalise any agreement for the hiring of a gaming machine to a society or club which is protected by these Acts provided that the rental paid to the hirer is a fixed straight rental, but that if there is any arrangement, direct or indirect, whereby the hirer gets either in substitution for, Or in addition to, a straight fixed rental some other sum that is related to the amount spent or earned—

Mr. Renton: Hazarded.

Mr. Fletcher: —hazarded, spent, gained or earned by the machine, that arrangement will be totally illegal.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would tell the hon. Member that that is so. I should, however, add that it is not the only criterion whether gaming is lawful. The other conditions specified in Section 17 of the 1960 Act have also to be complied with, but as far as the method of payment is concerned, the hon. Member has correctly stated the position.

Mr. Eric Johnson: May I say very briefly that I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for the way in which he has amended the Bill. May I also say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who is unable to be here today, that he shares that gratitude. He has told me that he is satisfied from his knowledge of the law that the flaw as we saw it has been put right.
I, as a layman, with regrettably little knowledge of the law, but perhaps an eye for the main chance in matters of this kind, am equally satisfied that the loophole has been closed. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham): Those who were worried in the earlier stages of the Bill are grateful for the full explanation which has been given of the Amendment, which, as far as I can see, removes the great difficulty which would have arisen if clubs and genuine institutions had wished to install these machines. I am sure that the House is grateful for the Amendment rectifying the position.

Amendment agreed to.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Bidgood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
On Second Reading, I referred to the fact that the Press had jocularly described the Bill as the "Bingo Bill", and I pointed out that it covered much wider fields than the playing of bingo. It is interesting that virtually the only reference to bingo which has been made during the various processes of the Bill were made by my hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading, that nobody else has referred to the game since and that the points which have been made and which necessitated an Amendment were to do with gaming machines and not with the playing of the game of bingo.
I should like again to pay tribute to the realistic attitude which has been adopted by the Churches Council on Gambling with reference to the Bill. They believe it to be a sound Bill which will carry out what Parliament originally intended under the three Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Bill. I believe that it closes a serious gap and will enable the various institutions covered by the Bill to carry out their activities within the law.
We all know, as has been mentioned this afternoon, how difficult it is to legislate on gaming and lotteries, because there are always so many people anxious to find a way of defeating what we in Parliament intend. This Bill is no exception because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, it has not been an easy Bill to draft. Even the Amendment which has been included this afternoon was not an easy Amendment to draft. But I feel that we have got as near as we possibly can to closing the loophole which undoubtedly existed.
I thank my hon. Friends for their constructive criticism of the Bill and my


hon. and learned Friend for his kind advice throughout.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: May I say two or three words in support of the Bill? May I first observe that the Press are perhaps not altogether to be criticised for having referred to this as the "Bingo Bill". The word "bingo" has come to cover a multitude of sins and to be used in a generic as well as a specific sense. Whatever some of us may think of those who are bingo addicts, I do not regard bingo as the most serious or morally harmful of various forms of betting, gaming and lotteries.
It is important to emphasise that we are in no way extending the existing opportunities or those originally intended by Parliament for betting and gaming. We are merely seeking to change a decision of the House of Lords on a highly technical point reached by a majority of three Law Lords against a minority of two dissenting Law Lords on the construction of the words "private gain".
It is now being asserted that if bingo or any other lottery or game to which the Act applies is played within the limits allowed by law by any working men's club or sporting or athletic club, or any other genuine members' club, the fact that part of the ultimate proceeds go to the club does not in any way disentitle the club from saying that the bingo or other game or gaming machine used to provide funds for the club is lawful. It is not to be regarded as a contribution to the private gain or benefit of the club members.
It is for that reason that the Church Council on Gambling has been sensible enough to say—as hon. Members on this side of the House say—that it has no objection to the Bill. We support its Third Reading.

3.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): As this has been referred to as a "Bingo Bill" it is right, as a Home Office Minister, that I should once more point out that the easement—to the extent that it is an easement—which the Bill contains will not benefit proprietary clubs. Therefore, as I said in our earlier proceedings, there is no

need to fear that it will lead to an increase in bingo. It will not facilitate the extension of commercial bingo in any way.
That is the only point of substance which it would be appropriate for me to make in the Third Reading debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) upon the skill with which he has piloted the Bill through the House and for the open-mindedness that he has shown to the most constructive suggestions made to him—especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill has already been through another place, but as the House has been kind enough to accept it so far without any discussion I feel that it would be only courteous if I were to say a few words about it when expressing the hope that it will be given a Third Reading.
Its underlying principle is one with which we would all agree, namely, that unnecessary cruelty to animals should be restricted. The general law with regard to the protection of and cruelty to animals is laid down in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. Under that Act it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal, and it is also provided that a poisonous drug or substance may not be administered to any animal wilfully or without reasonable cause or excuse.
The 1911 Act defines the word "animal" as a domestic or captive


animal; wild animals are not protected. Under Section 8 of that Act, as amended, a person may not put down poison on any land or in any building, but a proviso is added to that Section which says that
it shall be a defence if the poison is placed for the purpose of destroying insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice or other small ground vermin where such is found to be necessary in the interests of public health, agriculture or the preservation of other animals, domestic or wild.
Apart from the certificates which are required to obtain certain poisons under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, there is no restriction on the kind of poison which may be used and some of the poisons Which are obtainable are extremely cruel. I do not think that I need go into any detail about such poisons. There is, of course, Red Squill, which is a particularly cruel poison. An animal which has taken the poison may take up to five days to die. It is still obtainable under other names. For example, it can be bought as Blue Rodine or Ratoids. There is no power to prevent its use, although there is a very adequate substitute for it, namely, Warfarin, which causes very much less suffering.
Perhaps I should also mention another extremely cruel poison, namely, strychnine. That can be obtained on a certificate from an agricultural Department and it is unfortunately the case that no effective substitute for it has yet been found for the killing of moles.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement a recommendation made by a Home Office Committee, the Scott-Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals. That Committee reported in 1951. One of the practices which it investigated was the laying down of poison, and it recommended that
steps should be taken to confer upon an appropriate Minister or Ministers power to make regulations authorising or prohibiting the use of particular poisons for killing wild animals.
The Bill will give the Home Secretary the power to designate certain poisons as "cruel poisons," if he is satisfied that they are cruel in operation and if he is also satisfied that alternative methods of destruction are not available, and any person who uses such a poison with intent to kill or injure an animal would commit an offence. Consequently, the

proviso to which I have just referred in Section 8 of the 1911 Act will no longer be a defence if the poison used is one prohibited by the Home Secretary under the powers given to him by Clause 2 of the Bill.
I have mentioned that it is unfortunately true that strychnine still has to be used as an effective method for killing moles, but many new poisons are being discovered and coming on to the market which are much more humane. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have available to him the services of experts. These experts are available to advise him and other Ministers. For example, there is the Infestation Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That Department is constantly working to devise new methods for pest destruction.
Then there are the animal welfare societies such as the Universities Federation on Animal Welfare, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others which are very keenly interested in the Bill and which will, no doubt, seek the opportunity to make valuable suggestions to my right hon. Friend.
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, in particular, was most helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Cranbrook, who piloted the Bill through another place and who deserves all the credit for it. I have no doubt that as soon as a more humane poison can be discovered to supersede cruel poisons such as strychnine the Home Secretary will make use of the power given him by the Act to outlaw such a poison as strychnine for use on the mole, for which it can still be used until a substitute is found.
This is quite a small Bill, but I believe that it will contribute a great deal to a cause which all of us have at heart, the prevention of unnecessary suffering by animals. As such I commend it to the House.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I intended to intervene during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), but I was a little too late. I wish to ask whether the provisions of the Bill could be extended to take into their ambit the damage and suffering inflicted on wild birds when poisons are


spread on crops. It is not obviously within the purpose of the Bill, but could advantage be taken of it for that purpose?

Mr. Johnson: I understand that the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, protects birds. This Bill does not go further than the prevention of laying down of certain cruel poisons.

3.31 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: While welcoming the Bill, I wish to ask the Minister of State, Home Office, to use all his powers to call on research people to make sure that the last loophole, the use of strychnine and other cruel poisons, should be investigated with the possibility of finding some alternative to those very cruel forms of poisoning.

3.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): The Government have certainly no objection to the Bill. Indeed, it is Government policy as far as practicable to replace poisons which cause unnecessary suffering. This is a Bill which we feel it right to leave to the decision of the House. It was carefully considered and rather drastically amended in another place. Its form and drafting appear to me to leave nothing to be desired.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked if the Bill could be used to protect wild birds which suffer from poisoning by agricultural chemicals. I must point out that it is quite clear from the drafting of the Bill that it does not have that purpose. Clause 1 reads:
Where the use of any poison for the purpose of destroying any animal has been prohibited or restricted by regulations….
If my hon. Friend will turn to Clause 3, he will find that "'animal' means any mammal", and if he turns to a dictionary I think that he will find that a mammal is a warm-blooded vertebrate that suckles its young. The Bill therefore has its limited purpose. That does not mean that it is not a very worthy purpose, nor one which should not be the subject of this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about strychnine. Strychnine is now used

mainly against moles and, since the early 1930s, it has been used in Scotland against seals. When used against moles it is added to worms which are inserted in the moles' runs. When dogs or cats and some other domestic animals consume this poison they show obvious signs of pain. Yet strangely enough, when it has been used against moles they have not seemed to show the same symptoms of pain.
It is doubtful, therefore, whether the poison can be regarded as a cruel one if the basis of the classification were the reaction of the male, but it would be classified as a cruel poison in its relation to other animals. There are strict limits to the ways in which strychnine can be obtained for pest destruction, and so on, and there is, in effect a very strict control over its use. Obviously, we do not wish to see strychnine used more than it has been.
Under the powers that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is given by this Bill, he would, of course, consult the Poisons Board and the Ministry of Agriculture, and would endeavour to ensure that the use of cruel poisons in the destruction of animals, whether wild animals, or domestic animals which had to be destroyed, was eliminated as far as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS BILL

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS ETC.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I had hoped that before the Committee parted with the Clause, the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) might explain it. If I recollect correctly, we did not have any discussion on Second Reading. As this is the operative, and virtually the only Clause.


I should like to ask one or two questions before we part with it.
The Bill seeks to increase the existing maximum penalties for certain forms of drunkenness. The existing penalties have been laid down in Acts which, as shown in subsection (2), go back as far as the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, and the Licensing Act, 1872, and there is also reference to other Acts down to and including the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, when, presumably, the appropriate penalties for these offences were considered by the House.
I have no doubt that there are a great many anomalies in the existing penalties for various forms of drunkenness. For example, under Section 12 of the Licensing Acts, 1872, which the hon. Lady seeks to amend, the penalty for being found drunk
… in any highway or other public place whether a building or not, or in licensed premises …
is 10s. for the first offence, 20s. for a second conviction within twelve months and, on a third or subsequent conviction within the same period of twelve months, 40s.
On the other hand, the penalty for being drunk and disorderly, or guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour or being drunk while on the highway in charge of any carriage, horse, cattle or steam engine is 40s., or imprisonment for a month. I imagine that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the provisions in Section 12 apply equally to persons in charge of motor cars on a highway, but I think that the point on which the Committee would like guidance is the following. We should like to know whether these specific increases for various offences which the hon. Lady is, no doubt, quite sensibly proposing, have been considered in relation to the whole range of penalties for drunkenness.
Is this a serious attempt to co-ordinate the whole of the law on this subject and bring all penalties for offences of this type into some relation with modern conditions or is it merely some haphazard attempt to deal with unrelated measures? Ordinarily, one would have expected some guidance from the Home Office on this matter. After all, this is not an unimportant subject but is one

which affects the whole system of penalties in relation to drunkenness.
I am sympathetic with the idea of taking any necessary steps—if they are shown to be necessary—to stiffen the penalties against crimes of any kind, but before we deal with social matters of this kind we are entitled to some explanation about the contents of the Clause and to know to what extent it really is a comprehensive review of the subject generally.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for raising this point, because I realise that beyond the speech I made when I asked leave to introduce the Bill there has been no debate on it. I quite agree that no one wishes to be haphazard about this sort of thing. Of all things, I have never regarded myself as being a haphazard person.
I might best answer the hon. Gentleman's questions by pointing out that the Bill arose out of discussions we had with the Newcastle bench of magistrates. If the hon. Gentleman will study the Measure he will see that four members of that bench are supporting the Bill. When we discussed it I immediately—because this is not a line of country into which I generally stray, so that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be too knowledgeable about these matters—approached the Home Office. I certainly agree that when one embarks on even a small Measure of this kind, because it is on such an important subject, one must see that it is placed properly in relation to the whole. As soon as I decided to try to increase these penalties by way of this form of Parliamentary procedure I immediately consulted the Home Office, partly for my own education and partly because I knew perfectly well that if I did not produce a sensible Bill the Home Office would have it blocked.
That is a safeguard for hon. Members who may want to bounce up and try to introduce Bills which are not consistent with what is regarded as good Parliamentary legislation. So I consulted the Home Office. There has been a Home Office Committee sitting for five or seven years considering all the penalties which courts of summary jurisdiction have the right to impose on offenders if a case


is proved. When I first approached the Home Office the point was immediately made to me that it was important to have the fines I was seeking to impose brought into line, so to speak, with the fines which that Committee is looking into over the whole wide field.
Having consulted the Home Office, and having waited a long time, the fines I am now asking to be embodied were agreed by the Home Office as being reasonable, up to date and in line with the other fines which are being discussed by the Home Office Committee. It is rather difficult for me to say that they will be in line with all the other proposals, as I have not seen the other proposals. However, I am occasionally inclined to accept what Government Departments say, and if there has been any weakness in the fines—if they were either too large or too small in relation to what is in the mind of this very important Committee, which I hope will report before long—as the Home Office has not in any way taken steps to obstruct my Bill, I assume that the proposals will be in line with what we may expect when the Committee reports. I hope, with this explanation, that the hon. Member for Islington, East will be satisfied.

3.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has given to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) the answer that I knew she would, namely, that as a result of consultation with the Home Office, this Bill within its relatively narrow compass seeks to be comprehensive. It is not a haphazard selection by any means.
The hon. Gentleman questioned in a list of Acts and Statutes of some age the presence of a relatively modern Statute, the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. That was, in fact, a consolidating Measure and there was no discussion on penalties at that time. Therefore, I think he may take it that these penalties that we are discussing today are of considerable age, and that the mere passage of time and what has happened to the currency in that passage of time

make this doubling of the fines—for that is roughly what it is—important and necessary. It is comprehensive, as I say, within a certain narrow compass.
It is only right for me to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not cover the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit to drive by reason of being under the influence of drink. This is, as he knows, an offence under the Road Traffic Acts, and the relevant Sections of those Acts provide that a person liable to be charged with an offence under them shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, or the equivalent Scottish Act, so that it does not deal with the very vexed question of being drunk in charge and similar vehicular offences, if I may so describe them. Apart from that, on the rather narrower point of these offences of drunkenness, some of which are very serious—and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious Bill—it is comprehensive.
If I do not have another opportunity I should like to thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth for the good work which she has done for the community in pressing on with this important Measure which I can assure her is in line with the thinking of the Standing Committee on penalties generally.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that we ought to correct one error which the Minister inadvertently made. He referred to the doubling of the penalty. I think that the position is this. To take the commonest case, whereas the penalty for being drunk in a public place in 1872 was 10s., it is now being increased to £5; in other words, the penalty is being increased tenfold. I thought that the confidence of the hon. Lady in the Home


Office was remarkably touching, and I am sure that it will be flattered by that testament to its ability. I take it that the reason for increasing the fine for being drunk in a public place from 10s. to £5 is due to the decrease in the value of money during the last ninety years and is not due to there having been any notable increase in drunkenness in public places.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher for giving me the opportunity to correct a slip of the tongue. When I said "double" I had in mind the difference between simple drunkenness and drunk and disorderly, the new maxima being £5 and £10, respectively. The actual absolute figures are being considerably more than doubled, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is not because of any increase in drunkenness or any fear that there will be a sudden increase in drunkenness. It is simply that the value and the deterrent effect of those fines have become very small with the passage of time. I should not like to be wedded to a statistical or accurate measurement of the decrease in the value of money since 1860 or 1872, but that is the purpose of the Bill and it is in line with that.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, apart from the value of money, there is a difference in perhaps the definition of drunkenness between now and 1872. He will recollect that Mr. Jorrocks said that he who could lie without holding in his day was not drunk. There may he a different scale of values today and possibly this may make a difference to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed

DRAINAGE RATES BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

PLANNING CONDITIONS FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.54 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I was given leave to bring in the Bill in December I gave fully the reasons for bringing it in. It remains for me, in the few minutes that are left, to say something about the actual form in which the Bill comes before the House.
The purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for local authorities with planning powers to ensure that developers carrying out private development make provision for the rehousing of persons who may be displaced by the redevelopment. The method I have chosen is simply to enable them to use powers which they already have to make conditions, and it is envisaged that they will come to agreements with developers in applying those powers.
Many local authorities are able to do this now by other means. Sometimes, they already own a property in the redevelopment area and, by agreement with the developer, they arrange to sell the property they own to the developer, in return for which the developer agrees to rehouse the residue of tenants who cannot obtain accommodation by other means. However, where a local authority is not in that position or has no other way of bringing pressure on the developer, there is no power to ensure that the developer rehouses persons who have no agreement with their landlord as regards other accommodation.
The developer has to rehouse persons who are controlled tenants. Owner-occupiers can usually reach agreement with the developer and, by selling their property to him, are enabled to buy other property for themselves. But the residue of tenants cannot do this. Many of them are old. Many have limited means. When development takes place, they are forced to turn to the local authority. The local authority has to do its best to find alternative accommodation for them, in addition to all its other problems, and very often it cannot do so.
This very short and simple Bill enables planning authorities to make suitable conditions in respect of private redevelopment. The method I have chosen has, in my view, been reinforced, since I drew up the Bill, as the right way to do it. I have considered very carefully the legislation which is operating in New York. There are similar arrangements there. Under what I believe are called the Title 1 Project activities in the City of New York concerned with slum clearance and urban renewal, a similar method is applied.
It seems to me that, in the absence of Government action on these lines, something must be done. The previous Minister of Housing and Local Government made it clear that he would take no action. In the debate on urban renewal a few weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave very little hope of legislation which would make such a scheme possible.
I have, therefore, introduced this Private Member's Bill in the hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and go on to help the few but very needy people who are displaced by private developers and made homeless.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said that this is a short and simple Bill, but it has widespread implications and it is not, I suggest, the appropriate vehicle to deal with this matter. I want more debate about it before we agree to it.

This is not to say that I have not great sympathy with the aims and objects of the Bill. It is just that I question very much whether the hon. Lady's Bill is the best way to deal with the matter.
From the start, the Bill would bring about a great deal of slowing down in redevelopment schemes by private enterprise. As we know, there are some—a small minority—of landlords who are hard-hearted and unscrupulous. Undoubtedly—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE BILL

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 29th June.

RURAL TRANSPORT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 29th June.

EXTENSION OF LEASES BILL

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 29th June.

FURTHER EDUCATION, WEST MIDDLESEX

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: I rise in order to ask about the facilities being provided for further education throughout West Middlesex. This is a matter which concerns my constituency, but it also concerns just as much and just as urgently a great many constituencies around mine. In this area with a population of several hundreds of thousands, the educational facilities have not got a great deal to do with the administrative frontiers. There is a great deal of criss-crossing. People travel both to school and to work over a good many boundaries, and therefore when I ask questions, as I propose to do, about the educational facilities in one part of the area, I recognise that the answers to them will be of interest in other areas as well.
West Middlesex, which extends roughly from Acton to the border with Buckinghamshire, is intensely interested in education, and in particular, I think, it is becoming more and more interested in technical education. There are a number of reasons for this. One reason is that it is an area with a great deal of industry in it. Another reason is that it contains a very large number of people who have themselves come up the educational escalator. They are eager to see that the facilities from which they have benefited shall be extended for their children. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the demand in West Middlesex for better educational facilities is a very real one.
It is a demand which—I think I can say this—crosses all the party frontiers. It is something in which the whole population is interested. I think that the whole population will want to know what sort of information the Parliamentary Secretary can give in reply to the questions which I am going to put to him.
I am not going to retread the well-trodden arguments for extending technical education. I think we can take all that as said. I know, and I

think that everybody else interested in the matter knows, that ever since the White Paper of 1956 the Government have been systematically extending the facilities for technical education.
The question I ask first is: how are we getting on with this in West Middlesex? It is quite clear, and it is common ground, I think, that we need two things in West Middlesex. We need more accommodation in the existing technical colleges; and secondly, we need more technical colleges. I want to take each of those points separately.
What is being done to extend the available places in the technical colleges of West Middlesex now? Let me start with Southall Technical College. I know it is not in my own constituency, but, as I have said, there is a very great deal of criss-cross traffic. The facilities provided at Southall Technical College are of interest not only to the people who live in Southall, but also to people who live within travelling distance of it.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, this matter has been raised with him several times. It was raised early this year by Hayes and Southall Trades Council. I passed on a letter to my hon. Friend and put some questions to him about what exactly was going to be done. This illustrates my point that this is not a party matter. Hayes and Southall Trades Council is demanding better Technical educational facilities. For myself, although I do not suppose that the members of that council agree with my political outlook, I welcome any pressure which anybody cares to exert to extend and improve educational facilities. The more pressure groups there are in education the better. The bigger and the busier and the more bellicose they are, the better, too. So I welcome the support of the trades council, or of anybody else, in reinforcing the demand for extending education.
When this question about Southall Technical College was raised early this year, the Ministry made a very interesting and, I think, very reassuring reply.
Let me say at this point before I go any further that I am not criticising the Ministry. I am not asserting that it has fallen down on its job. I recognise that it is as concerned as anybody else,


and also that it has exerted itself to meet this demand. I am not getting up in order to lambast it, but in order to find out some facts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to supply them.
When this question about Southall was raised earlier in the year, the Ministry said that it recognised the need for expanding the College and hoped to increase the workshop capacity there. I agree. So it should. I should now like to know what has been done. That was several months ago. What are the facts now? How far has this extension taken place? How many extra places have been provided?
The Ministry also talked about providing what is described as mobile accommodation. I presume this means something in the nature of pre-fabricated or temporary buildings, which can be moved to another area if the demand for teaching in that area increases. I should like my hon. Friend to clarify that phrase.
Secondly, the Ministry suggested that in addition it would seek to expand the facilities at other technical colleges in West Middlesex. I should like to have some information about that. What sort of extension is going on? What is the programme? What is the progress? What has been done? How many additional places have been provided? How many will be available when the academic year starts in the autumn?
Thirdly, the Ministry suggested that it would seek not only to expand the colleges but also to set up something like a clearing house so that people who applied for a place at one college and were told that there was not one could be directed to another. This is a very valuable and useful idea. What has been done about it? Has this clearing house been set up? If it has, what is the address? I should like to see it publicised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some information about that. I hope further that he will be able to deal, not in general terms but in some detail, with the nature of the expansion now taking place in West Middlesex. Where exactly is it happening? I am interested in Southall. I am equally interested in Ealing, Wembley, Acton, Brentford and Harrow.

They all matter not only to the neighbourhood concerned but to all the people throughout the region.
In addition to expanding existing technical colleges the Ministry has agreed to create a new one. I naturally have a particular interest in this, since it is to be in my own constituency—the Uxbridge Technical College. Again I should like some factual information. When will the job of building this place actually begin? Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a date? Can my hon. Friend tell us when the building will start, when he expects it to finish, when he expects the college to open and how many places it will have when it opens? We need factual detailed information, as precisely as my hon. Friend can give it.
I turn now to another project of equal importance to the technical colleges. As we all know, it has been decided to turn the Brunel College at Acton into a college of advanced technology and to move it to Cowley, near Uxbridge. The projected opening date is 1964–65. In view of the great and growing demand for further technical facilties in West Middlesex, can my hon. Friend look again at the plans for the Brunel College? Is it practicable to bring the date of opening nearer than 1964–65? Is it practicable to review the plan so as to see whether more places can be provided than wore originally projected?
At this point, I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the number of teachers for technical colleges in Middlesex. How many does he have and how many does he want? Can he give us any figures about recruitment or wastage? I do not imagine that he can answer these questions off the cuff in detail, but I should like an indication of the general picture.
Next, I should like to know something about the Ministry's thinking on the general question of technical education. By developing the technical colleges we provide facilities for apprentices to take part-time courses and thereby become craftsmen. There is, however, an idea held by same people, I find—I do not suggest that it is accurate or justified—that the Ministry is rather more enthusiastic about developing higher education. I am not pontificating about this: I have no credentials for doing that. It


may be that the Ministry takes the view that with the advance of technology, we need to put more emphasis upon the training of people for science and engineering degrees than on the training of craftsmen and technicians.
I should like to know the Ministry's thinking about this. How does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary see the picture? Where does the Ministry consider that the pressure for expansion should be intensified? At what point on the educational spectrum does it want to see the most rapid and most immediate expansion? Would my hon. Friend say that it is not the shortage of craftsmen that matters so much as the shortage of people with science and engineering degrees?
Finally, I want my hon. Friend to give us some sort of picture of the state of affairs that will exist in the autumn. As he will remember, the Hayes Trades Council asserted that last September a good many boys were unable to get further education places in Middlesex, and that in Hayes and Southall the difficulty of finding places for all the people who wanted them was very great.
Does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accept that assertion? Is it the case that last autumn it was not easy or practicable to provide technical college places for all the people who wanted them? What will be the position in the coming autumn? We are now in June. The question whether the facilities that we are now in process of providing will be enough to cope with the emerging demand is immediate. Can my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary give us any information about what he expects the state of affairs to be this autumn?
Let me remind my hon. Friend that in the 1955–56 White Paper, which was the starting point for this process, it was said that technical education must be brought within the reach of all. How far are those words coming true in Middlesex? Is it true in Middlesex now that technical education has been brought within the reach of all? Is my hon. Friend able to assure us that when the academic year starts in September, there will be technical college places in Middlesex for all who want them and who are fitted to have them?
This question is of the greatest interest to a great many parents and apprentices. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give detailed, factual assurances. If he can, they will be welcomed by hundreds of thousands of people throughout West Middlesex.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Obviously, this is a matter which affects my constituency. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), I was approached by the Hayes and Southall Trades Council about what is said to have happened last September, and I have been in touch with various authorities.
My information is that about 700 students failed to get enrolment at Southall Technical College and that altogether, in Middlesex, according to figures quoted at the Guildhall in April, 1,760 students failed to be enrolled. That is a substantial number. If it is true, it is lamentable. Everybody admits the shortage of skilled craftsmen, technicians and apprentices. The area in question is heavily industrialised. That such a state of affairs has come about fills everyone with the gravest apprehension.
I wonder whether part of the explanation is not due to the fact that the proposed expenditure of £5 million on technical education under the five-year development plan 1958–59 to 1962–63 was cut to £1,300,000. Part of the approval was earmarked, I gather, for the Brunel Technical College, which has not yet been able to be started. The effective approvals come to only £704,000 and, as far as I know, the only work which has been started in the programme 1958–62 is the Ealing Technical College.
No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary can give more encouraging news, but I rise to support the hon. Member because there is considerable apprehension about the position.

4.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am glad to have this opportunity, however attenuated, of speaking on the most important subject which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). First, I wish to take an opportunity to correct some misapprehensions from which some altogether unhelpful deductions are sometimes drawn. My hon.


Friend has been tremendously active in this matter, as we both know from the great exchange of correspondence which we have had and the number of times which we have talked about it, and I hope that as I go along I shall be able to catch up with most of the questions which he has addressed to me.
I am sure that all hon. Members and most people outside will be much encouraged by the fact that we are facing this enormous demand for more provision of facilities of this kind. This is precisely the kind of public climate which we want. We want people to be inspired to come forward and to seek the very kind of facility which we are discussing. I hope that the House regards what has happened in West Middlesex and elsewhere as encouraging rather than frightening.
It is not only in West Middlesex or in Middlesex County that this is happening. It is happening almost everywhere in the country, and we are doing our best to stimulate it to happen still more. This is precisely what we want. We recently issued a book, Forward from School, which sets out the links which there are, and the links which there might be, in the best of all worlds, between the secondary school and the technical education system to which we hope an increasing proportion of our young people will go. What is happening is that all over the country, as these new technical colleges and schools have been developed, and as the courses have expanded, so their attractions have become more apparent to parents and young people alike, and a great growth in the demand has come to face us at this time.
We are doing a great deal to meet the demand. I very much doubt whether society will ever achieve the stage at which it is doing everything which everybody wants it to do. All we can do is our best, and that we are doing. I suppose that the basic question which my hon. Friend addressed to me is whether the Ministry as a Ministry is seeking to concentrate on the production of graduate engineers to the neglect of craftsmen and trained apprentices. We recognise, of course, that we must play our part in the production of a proper number of trained graduate engineers to provide the leadership in our workshops and research organisations throughout

industry. But they will not be very much use unless they are standing upon a very firm base of craftsmen and technicians below, and our object is to get the whole pyramid properly balanced, resting upon a very wide base of craftsmen and technicians and leading to what we hope will be a balanced proportion of graduate enginers and scientists at their proper level.
I have no doubt that the argument will change from time to time as to how the emphasis should be laid, first at this point and then at another, but we must go on trying as best we can to get the balance right as things change from time to time. Out of the technical college building programme for 1963–64, totalling £16·8 million, about £12 million is allocated for 'the local and area colleges, which concentrate mainly on craft and technician work. I should have thought, at first sight, that that balance is about right.
We have a part to play, which is important now and which is increasing in importance, in seeing that the apprentice training of the country is not only right in quantity, which perhaps does not concern my Department quite as much as some people think it ought, but also right in quality, and here we believe that we can help to raise the quality of apprentice training which is going on in the country by providing the full-time integrated apprenticeship courses which are being developed in various parts of the country, and, secondly, by supporting, as we do, group apprenticeship schemes and so on, with the backing of courses in the technical colleges. Thus, we are concerned, and I hope properly demonstrating our concern, for the quality of the apprentices who are turned out at the end of their courses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge demonstrated that the position in West Middlesex is causing some alarm, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) showed that, not unnaturally, it was subject to a certain amount of confusion. I have no idea of the figures which have been exchanged in the area or the Guildhall. I have heard all sorts of figures, ranging from the 1,700 which he mentioned to considerably over 2,000. So far as we can find out from the authority and those concerned with the colleges, the


number of students who did not get places last September, but who wanted them and who were qualified for them was about 200. That is the figure given to us by the authorities.
It is very sad that there should be even 200 who could not get the kind of further training which they wanted, and I am not minimising the seriousness of it, but let us get it in proportion. I imagine that the difference arises from the fact that everybody collects the statistic representing the young man who did not get what he wanted and will add that to the common pool, without realising that he may have been disappointed at a number of points and that if they are all added together they give a grossly unreal figure.
This leads me to the clearing-house project to which my hon. Friend referred. If we could have a scientifically designed clearing-house system into which every application could be slotted and from which everyone was directed towards the course that he wanted, everything would be crystal clear to everyone who wanted to know the position at any time. But it would be a very complicated piece of machinery. The authority therefore has in mind not so much a clearing house as a clearing system, whereby every young applicant will apply for the course that he wants and which he thinks is appropriate to his needs, at the college of his choice. If he is admitted he presents no problem to himself or to anyone else. It is when he cannot be admitted that he becomes a problem.
I understand that the Middlesex education authority proposes in these oases that the application forms put in by the young men or women shall be directed by the college to the Middlesex education authority offices, which, operating its own machinery and knowing where there will be a suitable vacancy for that young man, will direct his application to the college where a vacancy exists. The applicant himself need do no more than make his first application to the college of his choice for the course of his choice. If he is in, there is no problem, and if he is too late he will be directed by this system to a place where there is a suitable

course for him. It is not so much a system of allocation as a system of diversion to places where students can be admitted.
I have no time to go into details about additional places proposed to be provided under the arrangements for next September. Nobody can tell precisely what the demand will be. All that the authority can do—and here I must pay tribute to an authority which has been more diligent, enterprising and ambitious than any that I have come across in facing a situation of this kind—is to expand its facilities and increase the pace at which provision is being made, in the hope that when the time comes it will be enough to meet the estimated need.
In Southall Technical College it is proposed that there shall be 60 additional places this September. Those 60 places will be multiplied by five for day release students, so that there should be room for 300 more students in that college this September than last. At Alperton, not very far away, it is expected that there will be another 100 places which, multiplied by five, means 500 places for day release students. It should be possible, in those two places alone, to accommodate another 800 day release students this corning September than was possible last September.
For Middlesex as a whole it is expected that about 2,000 extra places will be available as a result of the measures the authority is taking—which I have in great detail but which would take me too long to read and would bore the House. It means accommodation for between 8,000 and 10,000 extra day release students above those accommodated last September. In the case of Uxbridge Technical College, we approved a tender on 10th May at a total cost of £298,692. The work can start at any time—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.